Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RINGIER AXEL SPRINGER SLOVAKIA, A.S. v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 35090/07

  In doing so, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities, basing themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts, applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10. The Court must also ascertain whether the domestic authorities struck a fair balance between the protection of freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 10 and the protection of the reputation of those against whom allegations have been made, a right which, as an aspect of private life, is protected by Article 8 of the Convention (for a recapitulation of the relevant principles, see CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 89 - 91, ECHR 2004 XI and also Marônek v. Slovakia, no. 32686/96, § 53, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 12.12.2000 - 54224/00

  CAMPMANY Y DIEZ DE REVENGA and LOPEZ-GALIACHO PERONA v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 35090/07

  In conclusion, to the extent the remainder of the Article 10 complaint has been substantiated, the Court has found no indication that by their judgments the domestic courts overstepped the margin of appreciation accorded to them under Article 10 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Verdens Gang and Aase v. Norway (dec.), no. 45710/99, ECHR 2001-X, Lunde v. Norway (dec.), no. 38318/97, 13 February 2001 and Campmany and Lopez Galiacho Perona v. Spain (dec.), no. 54224/00, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 32686/96

  MARONEK v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 35090/07

  In doing so, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities, basing themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts, applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10. The Court must also ascertain whether the domestic authorities struck a fair balance between the protection of freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 10 and the protection of the reputation of those against whom allegations have been made, a right which, as an aspect of private life, is protected by Article 8 of the Convention (for a recapitulation of the relevant principles, see CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 89 - 91, ECHR 2004 XI and also Marônek v. Slovakia, no. 32686/96, § 53, ECHR 2001-III).

 
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 45710/99

  VERDENS GANG and AASE v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 35090/07

  In conclusion, to the extent the remainder of the Article 10 complaint has been substantiated, the Court has found no indication that by their judgments the domestic courts overstepped the margin of appreciation accorded to them under Article 10 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Verdens Gang and Aase v. Norway (dec.), no. 45710/99, ECHR 2001-X, Lunde v. Norway (dec.), no. 38318/97, 13 February 2001 and Campmany and Lopez Galiacho Perona v. Spain (dec.), no. 54224/00, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 38318/97

  LUNDE v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 35090/07

  In conclusion, to the extent the remainder of the Article 10 complaint has been substantiated, the Court has found no indication that by their judgments the domestic courts overstepped the margin of appreciation accorded to them under Article 10 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Verdens Gang and Aase v. Norway (dec.), no. 45710/99, ECHR 2001-X, Lunde v. Norway (dec.), no. 38318/97, 13 February 2001 and Campmany and Lopez Galiacho Perona v. Spain (dec.), no. 54224/00, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 35090/07

  In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or of law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, for example, Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, § 45, Series A no. 140).
• EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 62202/00

  RADIO TWIST A.S. v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 35090/07

  This power of appreciation is not, however, unlimited but goes hand in hand with a European supervision by the Court, whose task it is to give a final ruling on whether a restriction is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 (see, for example, Bezymyannyy v. Russia, no. 10941/03, § 36, 8 April 2010 and Radio Twist, a.s. v. Slovakia, no. 62202/00, § 49, ECHR 2006 XV).
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 10941/03

  BEZYMYANNYY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 35090/07

  This power of appreciation is not, however, unlimited but goes hand in hand with a European supervision by the Court, whose task it is to give a final ruling on whether a restriction is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 (see, for example, Bezymyannyy v. Russia, no. 10941/03, § 36, 8 April 2010 and Radio Twist, a.s. v. Slovakia, no. 62202/00, § 49, ECHR 2006 XV).