Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MELNITCHOUK c. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 35 Abs. 4, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MELNYCHUK v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 35 Abs. 4, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (38)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 28743/03

  Furthermore, it is the domestic courts that are best placed for assessing the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, among many other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, p. 32, § 32, and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, § 34).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 28743/03

  Furthermore, it is the domestic courts that are best placed for assessing the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, among many other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, p. 32, § 32, and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, § 34).

• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Thus, their assessment was not flawed by arbitrariness or manifest unreasonableness contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention ( Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX; see also, Breierova and Others v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 57321/00, 8 October 2002).
• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 25379/04

  P. GMBH gegen Deutschland

  Mithin hat er z. B. geistiges Eigentum wie Marken und Urheberrechte (siehe Rechtsachen Melnychuk ./. Ukraine (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 28743/03, EGMR 2005-IX; Anheuser-Busch Inc.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.04.2011 - C-70/10

  Rechtsangleichung

  gegen Portugal vom 11. Januar 2007, Beschwerde Nr. 73049/01, §§ 71 und 72, sowie Entscheidung Melnychuk gegen Ukraine vom 5. Juli 2005, Beschwerde Nr. 28743/03, § 3.

 
• EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 38197/16

  GÜLEN c. TURQUIE

  Le droit européen pertinent en l'espèce concernant le droit de réponse rectificative est décrit dans l'affaire Melnitchouk c. Ukraine ((déc.), no 28743/03, 5 juillet 2005).

  Elle estime que cette exigence de traitement rapide imposée aux juridictions internes, s'agissant de la publication d'un droit de réponse rectificative, peut être considérée comme nécessaire et justifiable afin de permettre la contestation d'informations fausses parues dans la presse et d'assurer une pluralité d'opinions dans le cadre d'un échange d'idées dans un domaine d'intérêt général (ibidem, § 30), ce qui est le but principal de la procédure de droit de réponse rectificative (Melnitchouk, c. Ukraine (déc.), no 28743/03, 5 juillet 2005).

• EGMR, 21.11.2013 - 16882/03

  PUTISTIN v. UKRAINE

  The relevant domestic law on defamation and judicial practice on that issue can be found in the case of Melnychuk v. Ukraine ((dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX; see also Ukrainian Media Group v. Ukraine (no. 72713/01, §§ 23-32, 29 March 2005) and Gazeta Ukraina-Tsentr v. Ukraine (no. 16695/04, §§ 18-20, 15 July 2010)).

  However, it is not the task of the Court to act as a court of appeal or, as is sometimes stated, as a court of fourth instance, in respect of the decisions taken by domestic courts (see Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX).

• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 8964/18

  AXEL SPRINGER SE v. GERMANY

  At the same time, it has stressed that given the high level of protection enjoyed by the press there need to be exceptional circumstances in which a newspaper may legitimately be required to publish, for example, a retraction, an apology or a judgment in a defamation case (see Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX, and Eker v. Turkey, no. 24016/05, § 45, 24 October 2017).
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 46443/09

  BJÖRK EIÐSDÓTTIR v. ICELAND

  She had offered Mr Y an opportunity to comment and her article quoted his reply (see Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX) to Mrs Z's allegation that he "encourage[d] girls who work[ed] for him to engage in prostitution and act[ed] as an intermediary in this respect".
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 67369/16

  RADIO BROADCASTING COMPANY B92 AD v. SERBIA

  It has also stressed that given the high level of protection enjoyed by the press, there need to be exceptional circumstances for a newspaper to be legitimately required to publish, for example, a retraction, an apology or a judgment in a defamation case (see Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX, and Eker v. Turkey, no. 24016/05, § 45, 24 October 2017).
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 22574/08

  KASHLEV v. ESTONIA

  The domestic courts are best placed to assess the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, among many other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 235-B; Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B; Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX; and Karpenko v. Russia, no. 5605/04, § 80, 13 March 2012).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 32299/08

  JOVANOVIC v. SERBIA

  As regards the complaint under Article 6 § 1, the Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I; and Cornelis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 994/03, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)), as it is not a court of appeal - or, as is sometimes said, a "fourth instance" (see, among many other authorities, Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 43206/07

  Kaperzyński ./. Polen
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  Verletzung der Unschuldsvermutung eines Verstorbenen durch gerichtliche …
• EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 24016/05

  EKER c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 562/05

  SIA AKKA/LAA v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 62605/00

  PETROL v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 34880/12

  RAMAER AND VAN WILLIGEN v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 65389/09

  VAN ANRAAT v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 84048/17

  EIGIRDAS AND VĮ "DEMOKRATIJOS PLETROS FONDAS" v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 2156/10

  M v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 26878/07

  ACAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 68837/14

  MOLDOVAN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 51706/11

  MARUNIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 40080/08

  BUJKOVIC v. MONTENEGRO
• EGMR, 10.09.2013 - 24660/07

  LUKEZIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 23103/07

  MOMCILOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 10958/08

  SOKOLOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 16231/07

  VIDAKOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 26036/08

  LALMAHOMED v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 10.12.2020 - 41987/13

  TÖLLE v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 54904/08

  PETLYOVANYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 12394/05

  VOLYURM AND POPLAVSKYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 26338/07

  IGNJEVSKI v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 13210/05

  NOVOVIC v. MONTENEGRO
• EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 1813/09

  SELDENRIJK-RAAT AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 72783/11

  THEO NATIONAL CONSTRUCT S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 42876/05

  OKTAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 25845/17

  FUNKE WOMAN GROUP GMBH v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 34865/07

  STICHTING VOOR EDUCATIE EN BEROEPSONDERWIJS ZADKINE v. THE NETHERLANDS