Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 19362/18   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2022,10017
EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 19362/18 (https://dejure.org/2022,10017)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05.05.2022 - 19362/18 (https://dejure.org/2022,10017)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05. Mai 2022 - 19362/18 (https://dejure.org/2022,10017)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2022,10017) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MESIC v. CROATIA

    Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil ...

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

  • EGMR, 30.07.2020 - 9849/15

    MIRJANA MARIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 19362/18
    OTHER LEGISLATION 26. The relevant domestic law and practice concerning length-of-proceedings remedies in Croatia is set out in Mirjana Maric v. Croatia (no. 9849/15, §§ 29-41, 30 July 2020).

    This also meant that it had to be exhausted for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 before any complaints concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings in Croatia were brought before the Court (see Pavic v. Croatia, no. 21846/08, § 36, 28 January 2010, and Mirjana Maric v. Croatia (no. 9849/15, § 37, 30 July 2020).

  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

    FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 19362/18
    Merits 127. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case in question and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 34529/10

    GUTSANOVI c. BULGARIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 19362/18
    The Court has accordingly found violations of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention on account of prejudicial statements made by various high-ranking State officials, such as the State President (see Pesa, cited above, §§ 148-51), the Prime Minister (ibid.; see also Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, § 194-98, ECHR 2013 (extracts)), the Minister of Justice (see Konstas v. Greece, no. 53466/07, §§ 43 and 45, 24 May 2011) and the Speaker of Parliament (see Butkevicius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 53, ECHR 2002-II (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

    CASTELLS v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 19362/18
    That had been confirmed by the Court which in its case-law had often pointed out that the Government should, instead of resorting to criminal proceedings, use other means available for replying to the unjustified attacks and criticisms of its adversaries or the media (the applicant referred to Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 46, Series A no. 236).
  • EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

    NIKULA c. FINLANDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 19362/18
    The Court has in a number of cases emphasised that lawyers play a vital role in the administration of justice and that the free exercise of the profession of lawyer is indispensable to the full implementation of the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention (see, for example, Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, §§ 132-39, ECHR 2015, and Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 45, ECHR 2002-II).
  • EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 25333/06

    EUROPAPRESS HOLDING D.O.O. v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 19362/18
    Although the Court is not bound by the findings of domestic courts, in normal circumstances it requires cogent elements to lead it to depart from the findings of fact reached by those courts (see, for example, Europapress Holding d.o.o. v. Croatia, no. 25333/06, § 62, 22 October 2009, and Stojanovic, cited above, § 65).
  • EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 50123/06

    MILISAVLJEVIC v. SERBIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 19362/18
    It thus follows that, contrary to the Government's argument (see paragraph 59 above), the civil courts failed to carry out the required balancing exercise between Mr Jurasinovic's reputation and the applicant's freedom of expression (compare Perinçek, cited above, § 278; Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 43, 4 April 2013; and Milisavljevic v. Serbia, no. 50123/06, § 38, 4 April 2017).
  • EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 27756/05

    URECHEAN AND PAVLICENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 19362/18
    As regards high-ranking State officials, the Court has emphasised the importance of their freedom of expression by holding that, in order to protect their free speech in the exercise of their functions and to maintain the separation of powers in the State, it is acceptable in a democratic society for States to afford functional immunity to their heads of State (see Urechean and Pavlicenco v. the Republic of Moldova, nos. 27756/05 and 41219/07, § 47, 2 December 2014).
  • EGMR, 19.09.2013 - 23160/09

    STOJANOVIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 19362/18
    In the light of its above finding that the applicant may rely on Article 10 of the Convention in the present case (see paragraphs 33-34 above), and having regard to its case-law (see, for example, Stojanovic v. Croatia, no. 23160/09, § 56, 19 September 2013), the Court finds that the judgment in question constituted an interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 § 1 of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 16.04.2009 - 34438/04

    EGELAND AND HANSEID v. NORWAY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 19362/18
    His situation thus could not be compared to that of persons who voluntarily expose themselves to public scrutiny by virtue of their role as politicians, public figures or participants in a public debate on a matter of public interest, and who are therefore required to display a higher level of tolerance than would be expected of non-public figures, in respect of which wider limits of criticism are acceptable (see, for example and mutatis mutandis, Egeland and Hanseid v. Norway, no. 34438/04, § 62, 16 April 2009).
  • EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 19331/05

    KATRAMI c. GRECE

  • EGMR, 28.01.2010 - 21846/08

    PAVIC v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

    RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 4977/05

    REZNIK v. RUSSIA

  • KAG Aachen, 07.02.2006 - 35/05
  • EGMR, 07.01.2016 - 39380/13

    VRTAR v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 57942/10

    RUJAK v. CROATIA

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 08.02.2024 - C-633/22

    Real Madrid Club de Fútbol - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle

    113 Vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 5. Mai 2022, Mesic/Kroatien (CE:ECHR:2022:0505JUD001936218, §§ 111 bis 113), und EGMR, 16. Juni 2015, Defi AS/Estland (CE:ECHR:2015:0616JUD006456909, § 110).

    Vgl. EGMR, 5. Mai 2022, Mesic/Kroatien (CE:ECHR:2022:0505JUD001936218, § 113).

    135 Vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 5. Mai 2022, Mesic/Kroatien (CE:ECHR:2022:0505JUD001936218, §§ 111 bis 113).

  • EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 16915/21

    DANILET c. ROUMANIE

    En effet, les juridictions nationales, tout en citant la jurisprudence de la Cour, se sont limitées à une évaluation de la manière dont le requérant s'était exprimé, sans transposer les expressions employées par celui-ci dans le contexte plus large qui était le leur, à savoir celui d'un débat sur des questions d'intérêt général (paragraphes 16-19 et 23-26 ci-dessus ; voir également, mutatis mutandis, Mesic c. Croatie, no 19362/18, § 89, 5 mai 2022).
  • EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 14139/21

    NARBUTAS v. LITHUANIA

    The Court must therefore carry out such a balancing exercise itself (see Mesic v. Croatia, no. 19362/18, § 93, 5 May 2022, and the case-law cited therein).
  • EGMR, 15.05.2023 - 45581/15

    SANCHEZ c. FRANCE

    Dès lors, elle estime pertinent d'opérer un contrôle de proportionnalité en fonction du niveau de responsabilité susceptible de peser sur la personne visée: un simple particulier dont la notoriété et la représentativité sont limitées aura moins d'obligations qu'une personne ayant un mandat d'élu local et candidate à de telles fonctions, laquelle aura à son tour moins d'impératifs qu'une personnalité politique d'envergure nationale, pour qui les exigences seront nécessairement plus importantes, en raison tant du poids et de la portée de ses paroles que de sa capacité à accéder aux ressources adaptées, permettant d'intervenir efficacement sur les plateformes de médias sociaux (voir, mutatis mutandis, Mesic c. Croatie, no 19362/18, § 104, 5 mai 2022, et Melike, précitée, § 51).
  • EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 17053/20

    BAVCAR v. SLOVENIA

    The Court has also acknowledged that, generally speaking, words spoken by high-ranking State officials carry more weight (see, although in a different context, Mesic v. Croatia, no. 19362/18, § 104, 5 May 2022).
  • EGMR, 02.11.2023 - 44710/22

    FOUGASSE c. FRANCE

    Or, les avocats jouent un rôle essentiel dans l'administration de la justice et le libre exercice de leur profession est indispensable à la mise en ?“uvre intégrale du droit fondamental à un procès équitable garanti par l'article 6 de la Convention (voir, par exemple, Morice, précité, §§ 132-139, et Mesic c. Croatie, no 19362/18, §§ 74 et 109, 5 mai 2022).
  • EGMR, 08.06.2023 - 27926/21

    FRAGOSO DACOSTA v. SPAIN

    40660/08 and 60641/08, ECHR 2012; and Mesic v. Croatia, no. 19362/18, 5 May 2022).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht