Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FRISK AND JENSEN v. DENMARK

  No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  FRISK AND JENSEN v. DENMARK

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

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 13.11.2019 - 39401/04

  MGN LIMITED AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 19657/12

  In the present case, however, the Court finds that the decision that the applicants pay legal costs does not appear unreasonable or disproportionate (see, by contrast, MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, § 219, 18 January 2011).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 19657/12

  The Court has found that the most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court is called for when measures taken by a national authority are capable of discouraging the participation of the press in debates over matters of legitimate public concern (see, for example, Jersild v. Denmark, cited above, § 35 and Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 64, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 19657/12

  40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 108 to 113, ECHR 2012).

 
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 27209/03

  KULIS AND RÓZYCKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 19657/12

  The State therefore enjoys a margin of appreciation as to the means it provides under domestic law to enable a company to challenge the truth, and limit the damage, of allegations which risk harming its reputation (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 94, ECHR 2005-II; Kulis and Rózycki v. Poland, no. 27209/03, § 35, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 19657/12

  They referred to case-law in which the Court had presupposed that a public body could also fall within "the protection of the reputation or rights of others", for example, Romanenko and Others v. Russia, cited above, § 39; Lombardo and Others v. Malta, no. 7333/06, §§ 50 and 54, 24 April 2007; and Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239.
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 19657/12

  The Court reiterates that the potential impact of the medium of expression concerned is an important factor in the consideration of the proportionality of an interference and that the audio-visual media have a more immediate and powerful effect than the print media (see, for example, Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298).

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

  Real Madrid Club de Fútbol - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle …

  82 Vgl. unlängst EGMR, 5. Dezember 2017, Frisk und Jensen/Dänemark (CE:ECHR:2017:1205JUD001965712, § 53).

  85 Vgl. unlängst EGMR, 5. Dezember 2017, Frisk und Jensen/Dänemark (CE:ECHR:2017:1205JUD001965712, § 55).

• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 2840/10

  OOO MEMO v. RUSSIA

  Building on these findings, the Court observed in a case concerning defamation proceedings against journalists in which the Copenhagen University Hospital, a public body, was a claimant, that it was not convinced by the applicants' submission that the judiciary is the only public authority whose protection is capable of constituting a legitimate aim under Article 10 § 2 (see Frisk and Jensen v. Denmark, no. 19657/12, § 47, 5 December 2017).

  The Court has so far invariably acknowledged the existence of a legitimate aim in similar cases, irrespective of whether the parties disputed this point or not (compare the cases cited in paragraph 42 of the judgment, and Frisk and Jensen v. Denmark, no. 19657/12, §§ 42-50, 5 December 2017, where the applicants explicitly challenged the existence of a legitimate aim).

• EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 73087/17

  BALASKAS v. GREECE

  In that regard, the Court reiterates that while the use of criminal-law sanctions in defamation cases is not in itself disproportionate (see Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-II; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July, cited above, § 47; and Ziembinski v. Poland (no. 2), no. 1799/07, § 46, 5 July 2016), a criminal conviction is a serious sanction, having regard to the existence of other means of intervention and rebuttal, particularly through civil remedies (see Frisk and Jensen v. Denmark, no. 19657/12, § 77, 5 December 2017).

 
• EGMR, 25.03.2021 - 1864/18

  MATALAS v. GREECE

  21279/02 and 36448/02, § 47, ECHR 2007-IV; and Ziembinski v. Poland (no. 2), no. 1799/07, § 46, 5 July 2016), a criminal conviction is a serious sanction, having regard to the existence of other means of intervention and rebuttal, particularly through civil remedies (see Frisk and Jensen v. Denmark, no. 19657/12, § 77, 5 December 2017).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 9142/16

  SAGDIÇ c. TURQUIE

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 107, ECHR 2012; Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 88, 7 February 2012; Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, § 92, ECHR 2015 (extracts); and Frisk and Jensen v. Denmark, no. 19657/12, § 54, 5 December 2017).
• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 64184/11

  PARASKEVOPOULOS v. GREECE

  In that regard, the Court reiterates that while the use of criminal-law sanctions in defamation cases is not in itself disproportionate (see Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-II; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July, cited above, § 47; Ziembinski v. Poland (no. 2), no. 1799/07, § 46, 5 July 2016), a criminal conviction is a serious sanction, having regard to the existence of other means of intervention and rebuttal, particularly through civil remedies (see Frisk and Jensen v. Denmark, no. 19657/12, § 77, 5 December 2017).
• EGMR, 18.10.2018 - 3779/11

  ANNEN v. GERMANY (No. 6)

  Schließlich stellt der Gerichtshof fest, dass die Sanktion strafrechtlicher Natur war; dies stellt - da es auch andere Interventions- oder Widerlegungsmöglichkeiten, insbesondere durch zivilrechtliche Rechtsmittel gibt - eine der schwerwiegendsten Formen des Eingriffs in das Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung dar (…siehe Perinçek, a. a. O., Rdnr. 273; und Frisk und Jensen./. Dänemark, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 19657/12, Rdnr. 77, 5. Dezember 2017).
• EGMR, 28.07.2020 - 53028/14

  MONICA MACOVEI v. ROMANIA

  In doing so, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and, moreover, that they relied on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-IV; and Frisk and Jensen v. Denmark, no. 19657/12, § 51, 5 December 2017).
• EGMR, 21.12.2021 - 66299/10

  BANASZCZYK c. POLOGNE

  Cependant, pour que l'article 8 de la Convention entre en ligne de compte, l'attaque à la réputation personnelle doit atteindre un certain niveau de gravité et avoir été effectuée de manière à causer un préjudice à la jouissance personnelle du droit au respect de la vie privée (Delfi, précité, § 137, et Frisk et Jensen c. Danemark, no 19657/12, § 52, 5 décembre 2017).
• EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 1443/11

  PIOTROWICZ v. POLAND

  Furthermore, the Court has addressed the possibility for public bodies to rely on "the protection of the reputation or rights of others" under Article 10 of the Convention (see Frisk and Jensen v. Denmark, no. 19657/12, §§ 42-50, 5 December 2017 and the cases referred to therein).