Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  UNGVÁRY AND IRODALOM KFT. v. HUNGARY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Ungváry and Irodalom Kft v. Hungary

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  UNGVARY AND IRODALOM KFT. v. HUNGARY

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

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 27.10.2005 - 58547/00

  WIRTSCHAFTS-TREND ZEITSCHRIFTEN-GESELLSCHAFT MBH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2013 - 64520/10

  The Court further recalls that the degree of precision for establishing the well-foundedness of a criminal charge by a competent court can hardly be compared to that which ought to be observed by a journalist or a historian when expressing his opinion on a matter of public concern, for the standards applied when assessing someone's past conduct in terms of morality are quite different from those required for establishing an offence under criminal law (see e.g. Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt v. Austria, no. 28525/95, § 46, ECHR 2002-I; Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften-Verlags GmbH v. Austria, no. 58547/00, § 39, 27 October 2005; and Karman, cited above, § 42).
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 29372/02

  KARMAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2013 - 64520/10

  In certain cases, the Court has objected to the restrictive definition of a term (e.g. the term "neo-fascist", see Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 40, 14 December 2006) resulting in a selective interpretation which may warrant different facts to be proven.
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2013 - 64520/10

  The Court finds that the term "official contact" is a wide one, capable of evoking in those who read it different notions as to its content and significance (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 86, ECHR 2001-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 16657/03

  A/S DIENA ET OZOLINS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2013 - 64520/10

  The Court further recalls that an assumption as to the reasons and possible intentions of others is a value judgment, not a statement of facts that would lend itself to proof (cf. a/s Diena and Ozolins v. Latvia, no. 16657/03, § 81, 12 July 2007).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2013 - 64520/10

  Although it must not overstep certain bounds set, inter alia, for the protection of the reputation of others, it is nevertheless incumbent on it to impart - in a way consistent with its duties and responsibilities - information and ideas on political questions and on other matters of public interest (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 34, Series A no. 313).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2013 - 64520/10

  The requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is impossible to fulfil and infringes freedom of opinion itself, which is a fundamental part of the right secured by Article 10 (see, for example, Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 103; Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), 23 May 1991, § 63, Series A no. 204).
• EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 13909/05

  LEPOJIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2013 - 64520/10

  In this regard, the amount of compensation awarded must "bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the... [moral]... injury... suffered" by the plaintiff in question (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 49 Series A no. 316-B; and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 96, ECHR 2005-II, where the Court held that the damages "awarded... although relatively moderate by contemporary standards... [were]... very substantial when compared to the modest incomes and resources of the... applicants..." and, as such, in breach of the Convention; see also Lepojic v. Serbia, no. 13909/05, § 77 in fine, 6 November 2007, where the reasoning of the domestic courts was found to be insufficient given, inter alia, the amount of compensation and costs awarded equivalent to approximately eight average monthly salaries).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2013 - 64520/10

  In this regard, the amount of compensation awarded must "bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the... [moral]... injury... suffered" by the plaintiff in question (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 49 Series A no. 316-B; and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 96, ECHR 2005-II, where the Court held that the damages "awarded... although relatively moderate by contemporary standards... [were]... very substantial when compared to the modest incomes and resources of the... applicants..." and, as such, in breach of the Convention; see also Lepojic v. Serbia, no. 13909/05, § 77 in fine, 6 November 2007, where the reasoning of the domestic courts was found to be insufficient given, inter alia, the amount of compensation and costs awarded equivalent to approximately eight average monthly salaries).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2013 - 64520/10

  In this regard, the amount of compensation awarded must "bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the... [moral]... injury... suffered" by the plaintiff in question (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 49 Series A no. 316-B; and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 96, ECHR 2005-II, where the Court held that the damages "awarded... although relatively moderate by contemporary standards... [were]... very substantial when compared to the modest incomes and resources of the... applicants..." and, as such, in breach of the Convention; see also Lepojic v. Serbia, no. 13909/05, § 77 in fine, 6 November 2007, where the reasoning of the domestic courts was found to be insufficient given, inter alia, the amount of compensation and costs awarded equivalent to approximately eight average monthly salaries).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2013 - 64520/10

  The most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court is called for when 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, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  SCHARSACH ET NEWS VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 25716/94

  JANOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

• EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 48311/10

  BILD-Artikel zu Gerhard Schröder und Gazprom zulässig

  Diesbezüglich verweist der Gerichtshof auf die Grundprinzipien, die sich aus seiner Rechtsprechung zum Thema ergeben (s. unter zahlreichen anderen Stoll./. Schweiz [GK], Nr. 69698/01, Rdnrn. 101-105, CEDH 2007-V;… Vides Aizsardzibas Klubs./. Lettland, Nr. 57829/00, Rdnr. 40, 27. Mai 2004; Ungváry und Irodalom Kft./. Ungarn, Nr. 64520/10, Rdnrn. 37-48, 3. Dezember 2013).
• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 346/04

  MUSTAFA ERDOGAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Where the right to freedom of expression is being balanced against the right to respect for private life, the relevant criteria have been laid down in the Court's case-law as follows: (a) contribution to a debate of general interest; (b) how well known the person concerned is and what the subject of the publication was; (c) prior conduct of the person concerned; (d) method of obtaining the information and its veracity; (e) content, form and consequences of the publication; and (f) severity of the sanction imposed (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, §§ 89-95, 7 February 2012, and Ungváry and Irodalom Kft v. Hungary, no. 64520/10, § 45, 3 December 2013).

  v. Hungary, no. 64520/10, § 44, 3 December 2013).

• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 47238/19

  ALMEIDA ARROJA v. PORTUGAL

  The classification of a statement as a fact or as a value judgment is a matter which falls primarily within the margin of appreciation of the national authorities (see Ungváry and Irodalom Kft v. Hungary, no. 64520/10, § 46, 3 December 2013).

 
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 11882/10

  PENTIKÄINEN c. FINLANDE

  In the Court's case-law, the concept of responsible journalism has so far focused mainly on issues relating to the contents of a publication or an oral statement (see, for example, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], cited above, §§ 65-67; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], cited above, §§ 52-55; Krone Verlag GmbH v. Austria, no. 27306/07, §§ 46-47, 19 June 2012; Novaya Gazeta and Borodyanskiy v. Russia, no. 14087/08, § 37, 28 March 2013; Perna v. Italy [GC], no. 48898/99, § 47, ECHR 2003-V; Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), cited above, § 45; Ungváry and Irodalom Kft v. Hungary, no. 64520/10, § 42, 3 December 2013; and Yordanova and Toshev v. Bulgaria, no. 5126/05, §§ 53 and 55, 2 October 2012) rather than on the public conduct of a journalist.
• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 48979/19

  VEIGA CARDOSO v. PORTUGAL

  Furthermore, it notes that the domestic courts did not categorise the impugned statements as either a statement of fact or as a value judgment (see Ungváry and Irodalom Kft v. Hungary, no. 64520/10, § 46, 3 December 2013).
• EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 73087/17

  BALASKAS v. GREECE

  40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 108-13, ECHR 2012; Axel Springer AG, cited above, §§ 89-95; Ungváry and Irodalom Kft v. Hungary, no. 64520/10, § 45, 3 December 2013; and Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, §§ 165-166, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 64184/11

  PARASKEVOPOULOS v. GREECE

  40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 108113, ECHR 2012; Axel Springer AG, cited above, §§ 89-95, Ungváry and Irodalom Kft v. Hungary, no. 64520/10, § 45, 3 December 2013, Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, §§ 165-166, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 46131/06

  FILIP c. ROUMANIE

  S'agissant notamment du contenu, de la forme et des répercussions de la publication, la Cour attache une importance particulière au fait qu'il ne s'agissait pas en l'espèce d'un article isolé, mais d'une campagne de presse qui s'est déroulée sur plusieurs années (mutatis mutandis, Ungváry et Irodalom Kft c. Hongrie, no 64520/10, § 53, 3 décembre 2013).
• EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 35283/14

  KHADIJA ISMAYILOVA v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 3)

  While confirming the Article 10 right of members of the public to have access to a wide range of publications covering a variety of fields, the Court has stressed that in assessing in the context of a particular publication whether there is a public interest which justifies an interference with the right to respect for private life, the focus must be on whether the publication is in the interest of the public and not whether the public might be interested in reading it (see Mosley v. the United Kingdom, no. 48009/08, § 114, 10 May 2011, and Ungváry and Irodalom Kft v. Hungary, no. 64520/10, § 47, 3 December 2013).
• EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 81097/12

  GÖBL v. HUNGARY

  In cases involving violations by the Hungarian authorities of Articles 10 and 11 the Court has already held that the finding of a violation can represent sufficient just satisfaction on its own in some circumstances (see, for Article 10, Vajnai v. Hungary, no. 33629/06, § 62, ECHR 2008; Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary, no. 37374/05, § 43, 14 April 2009; Ungváry and Irodalom Kft v. Hungary, no. 64520/10, § 81, 3 December 2013; and for Article 11, Patyi and Others v. Hungary, no. 5529/05, § 53, 7 October 2008).
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 58106/15

  WELSH AND SILVA CANHA v. PORTUGAL