Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 4977/05   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2013,5502
EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 4977/05 (https://dejure.org/2013,5502)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04.04.2013 - 4977/05 (https://dejure.org/2013,5502)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04. April 2013 - 4977/05 (https://dejure.org/2013,5502)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,5502) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

Sonstiges

Papierfundstellen

  • NJW 2014, 1163
 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (10)

  • EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 61561/08

    INSTYTUT EKONOMICHNYKH REFORM, TOV v. UKRAINE

    The Court concludes that the domestic courts failed to (i) recognise sufficiently that the present case involves a conflict between freedom of expression and the protection of a person's reputation and (ii) conduct a sufficiently careful balancing exercise between them on the basis of the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law (compare Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 43, 4 April 2013, and Niskasaari and Otavamedia Oy v. Finland, no. 32297/10, § 58, 23 June 2015).
  • EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 45083/06

    NOVAYA GAZETA AND MILASHINA v. RUSSIA

    The Court is not satisfied that the District and City Courts performed a balancing exercise between the need to protect the claimants" reputation and the Convention standard, which requires very strong reasons to justify restrictions on debates on questions of public interest (see Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 43, 4 April 2013).
  • EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 44294/06

    CHELTSOVA v. RUSSIA

    In any event, the Court considers that in the defamation proceedings instituted by S.P. the domestic courts did not perform a balancing exercise between the need to protect the plaintiff's reputation and the Convention standard, which requires very strong reasons for justifying restrictions on debates on questions of public interest, thus failing to recognise that the case before them involved a conflict between the right to freedom of expression and protection of reputation (see, with further references, Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 43, 4 April 2013).
  • EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 19382/08

    LYKIN v. UKRAINE

    Accordingly, he was afforded an appropriate opportunity to dispel any allegation which he considered to be untrue and present his own version of the relevant facts before the same audience (compare with Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 44, 4 April 2013, and contrast with Siredzhuk, cited above, § 88).
  • EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 16224/05

    REDAKTSIYA GAZETY ZEMLYAKI v. RUSSIA

    In this respect, the interference was therefore lawful (see Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 31, 14 December 2006; Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 41, 4 April 2013; and Kharlamov v. Russia, no. 27447/07, § 24, 8 October 2015).
  • EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 9406/05

    KUNITSYNA v. RUSSIA

    There must be something in the circumstances of a particular case to make the ordinary reader feel that the statement reflected directly on the individual claimant, or that he was targeted by the criticism (see Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 45, 4 April 2013, and the authorities cited therein).
  • EGMR - 32058/13 (anhängig)

    NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA

    Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? Did the domestic courts applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10? (see, among others, Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 45, 4 April 2013, and OOO Ivpress and Others v. Russia, nos. 33501/04, 38608/04, 35258/05 and 35618/05, §§ 71, 74 et passim, 22 January 2013)?.
  • EGMR - 69575/10 (anhängig)

    RASHKIN v. RUSSIA

    Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? Did the domestic courts apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention (see, among others, Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, § 59; Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV; Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 45, 4 April 2013; and Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 44, 31 July 2007)?.
  • EGMR - 28873/15 (anhängig)

    OOO TELEKANAL DOZHD v. RUSSIA

    Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, was the interference "prescribed by law" and was that law sufficiently clear and foreseeable in its application? What was the objective link between the question of the poll and the plaintiffs (compare Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 44, 31 July 2007; Godlevskiy v. Russia, no. 14888/03, § 44, 23 October 2008, and Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 45, 4 April 2013)?.
  • EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 13114/05

    ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA

    The Court is therefore satisfied that there existed an objective link between the impugned statements and the persons suing in defamation which is a requisite element for an interference with the right to freedom of expression to be proportionate to the legitimate aim of the protection of the reputation of others (see, by contrast, Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 44, 31 July 2007; Godlevskiy v. Russia, no. 14888/03, § 44, 23 October 2008, and Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 45, 4 April 2013).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht