Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA (No. 3)

  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 ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 26132/95

  BERGENS TIDENDE ET AUTRES c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 7972/09

  These factors, in turn, require consideration of other elements such as the authority of the source (ibid.), whether the newspaper conducted a reasonable amount of research before publication (Prager and Oberschlick, cited above, § 37), whether the newspaper presented the story in a reasonably balanced manner (Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no. 26132/95, § 57, ECHR 2000-IV) and whether the newspaper gave the persons defamed the opportunity to defend themselves (ibid., § 58).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 7972/09

  The Court reiterates in that regard 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, 25.06.2002 - 51279/99

  Frankreich wegen Verletzung der Pressefreiheit zu Schadensersatz verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 7972/09

  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, 01.03.2007 - 510/04

  TØNSBERGS BLAD AS AND HAUKOM v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 7972/09

  The Court will further consider the newspaper article as a whole and have particular regard to the words used in the disputed parts of it, 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, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  KASABOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 7972/09

  The courts must therefore take into account the likely impact of their rulings, not only on the individual cases before them but also on the media in general (see Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, § 55, 19 April 2011, and Yordanova and Toshev v. Bulgaria, no. 5126/05, § 48, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 7972/09

  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, 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 - 7972/09

  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, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 7972/09

  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 - 7972/09

  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 - 7972/09

  The applicant submitted that the language he had used in the passages in question had been neither rude, insulting, nor did it exceed the admissible degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 38, Series A no. 313).
• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 33352/02

  KELLER v. HUNGARY
• 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, 08.09.2020 - 46232/10

  TIMAKOV AND OOO ID RUBEZH v. RUSSIA

  In that context it will also take into account the general principles concerning the margin of appreciation and balancing the right to freedom of expression against the right to respect for private life (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, §§ 85-95, 7 February 2012; Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France ([GC], no. 40454/07, §§ 90-93, ECHR 2015 (extracts)); and Med?¾lis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no.17224/11, § 77, 27 June 2017) as well as the long-established principle that the requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment - which is not susceptible of proof - is impossible to fulfil and infringes freedom of opinion itself (see, among many others, Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 103, Morice, cited above, § 126; and Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 3), no. 7972/09, § 41, 2 October 2018).
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 74389/10

  PRONYAKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The domestic courts did not assess whether the impugned statements represented value judgments not susceptible of truth rather than statements of fact (see CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 96, ECHR 2004-XI, and Tolmachev v. Russia, no. 42182/11, § 50, 2 June 2020), or whether such statements should be seen in the context of the claimants" position as public figures open to close scrutiny of word and deed by both journalists and the public at large (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 38, ECHR 2001-II, and Redaktsiya Gazety Zemlyaki v. Russia, no. 16224/05, § 42, 21 November 2017), or whether the publications had touched upon a matter of public interest (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV, and Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 3), no. 7972/09, § 47, 2 October 2018), or whether they had emanated from third parties (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 35, Series A no. 298, and Nadtoka v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29097/08, § 48, 8 October 2019)).
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 11971/10

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The two first-instance courts did not assess whether the impugned statements represented value judgments not susceptible of proof rather than statements of fact (see CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 98, ECHR 2004-XI, and Tolmachev v. Russia, no. 42182/11, § 50, 2 June 2020), or whether they should be seen in the context of Ramzan Kadyrov's position as a political public figure open to close scrutiny of word and deed by both journalists and the public at large (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 38, ECHR 2001-II, and Redaktsiya Gazety Zemlyaki v. Russia, no. 16224/05, § 42, 21 November 2017), or whether the publications had touched upon a matter of public interest (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV, and Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 3), no. 7972/09, § 47, 2 October 2018), or whether they had emanated from third parties (see, with further references, Nadtoka v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29097/08, § 48, 8 October 2019)).
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 81060/12

  FATULLAYEV c. RUSSIE

  Le juge de paix n'a pas tenu compte de ce que le rôle de « chien de garde'de la presse dans une société démocratique comprend la couverture médiatique d"« histoires'ou de « rumeurs'- émanant de tiers - ou de « l'opinion publique ", qui bénéficie de la protection offerte par l'article 10 de la Convention à condition qu'elle ne soit pas complètement sans fondement (Fedchenko c. Russie (no 3), no 7972/09, § 54, 2 octobre 2018).
• EGMR, 09.11.2021 - 44414/12

  ALEKSANDROV v. RUSSIA

  In view of the limited scope of their reasoning in this respect, the Court is not persuaded by their approach (see Monica Macovei v. Romania, no. 53028/14, § 88, 28 July 2020) as the first-instance court omitted to consider certain essential elements: it disregarded the fact that the pre-investigation inquiry had been resumed by the date of the delivery of its judgment in the defamation proceedings (see paragraph 16 above) thus failing to base itself on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Nadtoka v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29097/08, § 50, 8 October 2019); it did not assess whether it represented a value judgment not susceptible of proof rather than statements of fact (see CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 98, ECHR 2004-XI); it did not take into account the claimant's position as a chair of an electoral commission (see Redaktsiya Gazety Zemlyaki v. Russia, no. 16224/05, § 42, 21 November 2017) or of the applicant's position as a member of the Tambov City Duma and thus an elected representative of the people (see Rashkin v. Russia, no. 69575/10, § 15, 7 July 2020); and it did not consider that the interview had touched upon a matter of public interest (see Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 3), no. 7972/09, § 47, 2 October 2018) even though the claimant's conduct in his capacity of the chair of an electoral commission was clearly of legitimate concern to the general public (compare Monica Macovei, cited above, § 86).