Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KAPERZYNSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage) Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage) (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• urheberrecht.org (Kurzinformation)

  Berufsverbot gegen Chefredakteur wegen Nichtveröffentlichung einer Berichtigung ist unverhältnismäßig

• lehofer.at (Kurzinformation und Auszüge)

  Berufsverbot für Journalisten wegen Nichtveröffentlichung einer Gegendarstellung ist unverhältnismäßig

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 43206/07
• EGMR, 19.11.2014 - 43206/07

Papierfundstellen

• NJW-RR 2013, 1132

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 25716/94

  JANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 43206/07

  As set forth in Article 10 § 2, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, among many other authorities, Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 30, ECHR 1999-I; Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII; and Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 41, Series A no. 103).

  In this context, the safeguards to be afforded to the press are of particular importance (Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 30, ECHR 1999-I).

• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 43206/07

  The chilling effect that the fear of criminal sanctions has on the exercise of journalistic freedom of expression is evident (see, mutatis mutandis, Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, § 50, ECHR 1999-VII; Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 54, ECHR 2002-II; Goodwin, cited above, p. 500, § 39; Elci and Others v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 33352/02

  KELLER v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 43206/07

  Furthermore, in assessing the proportionality of the interference, the nature and severity of the sanction imposed are also factors to be taken into account (see, for example, Keller v. Hungary (dec.), no. 33352/02, 4 April 2006; Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, §§ 41-42, 27 May 2003 and Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 56, ECHR 2007-I).

 
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 53984/00

  RADIO FRANCE ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 43206/07

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that, in view of the margin of appreciation left to Contracting States, a criminal measure as a response to defamation cannot, as such, be considered disproportionate to the aim pursued (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], cited above, § 59; Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-II; Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 68, 14 February 2008; Reinboth and Others v. Finland, no. 30865/08, § 90, 25 January 2011).
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 27209/03

  KULIS AND RÓZYCKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 43206/07

  Nevertheless, the Court must exercise caution when the measures taken or sanctions imposed by the national authorities are such as to dissuade the press from taking part in a discussion of matters of legitimate public concern (see Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria, no. 13071/03, § 49, 2 November 2006; Kulis and Rózycki v. Poland, no. 27209/03, § 37, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 30865/08

  Reinboth u.a. ./. Finnland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 43206/07

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that, in view of the margin of appreciation left to Contracting States, a criminal measure as a response to defamation cannot, as such, be considered disproportionate to the aim pursued (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], cited above, § 59; Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-II; Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 68, 14 February 2008; Reinboth and Others v. Finland, no. 30865/08, § 90, 25 January 2011).
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

  RUMYANA IVANOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 43206/07

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that, in view of the margin of appreciation left to Contracting States, a criminal measure as a response to defamation cannot, as such, be considered disproportionate to the aim pursued (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], cited above, § 59; Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-II; Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 68, 14 February 2008; Reinboth and Others v. Finland, no. 30865/08, § 90, 25 January 2011).
• EKMR, 30.06.1997 - 25091/94

  SAHiN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 43206/07

  23145/93 and 25091/94, § 714, 13 November 2003; Lombardo v. Malta, cited above, § 61).
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 28396/95

  Nichtberufung eines liechtensteiner Richters in das Amt des Gerichtspräsidenten …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 43206/07

  The chilling effect that the fear of criminal sanctions has on the exercise of journalistic freedom of expression is evident (see, mutatis mutandis, Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, § 50, ECHR 1999-VII; Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 54, ECHR 2002-II; Goodwin, cited above, p. 500, § 39; Elci and Others v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 13071/03

  STANDARD VERLAGS GMBH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 43206/07

  Nevertheless, the Court must exercise caution when the measures taken or sanctions imposed by the national authorities are such as to dissuade the press from taking part in a discussion of matters of legitimate public concern (see Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria, no. 13071/03, § 49, 2 November 2006; Kulis and Rózycki v. Poland, no. 27209/03, § 37, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 28743/03

  MELNITCHOUK c. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 20953/06

  WOLEK, KASPROW AND LESKI v. POLAND

• OLG Zweibrücken, 29.01.2015 - 4 U 81/14

  Sterbedrama - Gegendarstellungsanspruch in Rheinland-Pfalz: Anforderungen an die …

  Speziell zum Recht auf Gegendarstellung hat der Gerichtshof ausgeführt, dass dieser Anspruch zudem ein wichtiger Bestandteil des Rechts auf freie Meinungsäußerung des von einer Medienberichterstattung Betroffenen ist und in den Schutzbereich (auch) von Art. 10 Abs. 1 EMRK fällt; das habe seinen Grund schon darin, dass ein Betroffener in der Lage sein muss, unrichtige Informationen zu bestreiten, außerdem müsse Meinungsvielfalt sichergestellt werden (EGMR NJW-RR 2013, 1132, 1135, Urteilsabsatz 66).