Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA (No. 5)

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 33352/02

  KELLER v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 17229/13

  The Government further argued that the domestic courts had duly balanced the applicant's rights under Article 10 of the Convention and the plaintiff's rights protected under Article 8. They relied, inter alia, on Keller v. Hungary (dec.), no. 33352/02, 4 April 2006; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos.

  Having regard to the foregoing, the Court concludes that the balancing exercise carried out by the domestic courts did not take sufficiently into account all the standards established in the Court's case-law under Article 10 of the Convention (compare and contrast Keller v. Hungary (dec.), no. 33352/02, 4 April 2006, and Kwiecie?? v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 52, 9 January 2007).

• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 17229/13

  The Court reiterates in this respect that there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on debate on questions of public interest (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 510/04

  TØNSBERGS BLAD AS AND HAUKOM v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 17229/13

  The Court will further consider the newspaper article as a whole and have particular regard to the words used in its disputed parts, the context in which they were published and the manner in which it was prepared (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-IV, and Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, § 90, ECHR 2007-III).

 
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 17229/13

  In that connection, it points out that the most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court is called for when, as in the present case, the measures taken or sanctions imposed by the national authority are capable of discouraging the participation of the press in debates over matters of legitimate public concern (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 35, Series A no. 298).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 17229/13

  However, even where a statement amounts to a value judgment, the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether there exists a sufficient factual basis for the impugned statement, since even a value judgment without any factual basis to support it may be excessive (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 43, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 51279/99

  Frankreich wegen Verletzung der Pressefreiheit zu Schadensersatz verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 17229/13

  A politician acting in his public capacity inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large (see, among other authorities, Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 56, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83

  MARKT INTERN VERLAG GMBH ET KLAUS BEERMANN c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 17229/13

  In that regard, the Government relied on Markt Intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany (20 November 1989, § 35, Series A no. 165); Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria (no. 36207/03, 14 February 2008); and Novaya Gazeta and Borodyanskiy v. Russia (no. 14087/08, §§ 36-44, 28 March 2013).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 17229/13

  Article 10 protects not only the substance of the ideas and information expressed, but also the form in which they are conveyed (see Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), 23 May 1991, § 57, Series A no. 204).
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 17229/13

  Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (see Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 63, Series A no. 239, and Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 17229/13

  Journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 38, Series A no. 313).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 17550/03

  ALITHIA PUBLISHING COMPANY LTD & CONSTANTINIDES v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 23510/02

  VITRENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 21724/03

  OOO 'VESTI' AND UKHOV v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 18.11.2021 - 27801/12

  MARINONI c. ITALIE

  Même si elle a une connotation péjorative, elle ne semble pas justifier en soi, dans le contexte de la présente affaire, une sanction, fut-elle civile (comparer Milosavljevic c. Serbie (no 2), no 47274/19, § 55, 21 septembre 2021; Kiliçdaroglu c. Turquie, no 16558/18, § 44, 27 octobre 2020; Fedchenko c. Russie (no 5), no 17229/13, § 51, 2 octobre 2018; Axel Springer AG c. Allemagne [GC], no 39954/08, § 83, 7 février 2012).