Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOILA v. FINLAND

  Art. 10, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 7 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 7 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 6806/06

  In addition, the Court is mindful of the fact that journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 38, Series A no. 313, and Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, loc. cit.).
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13704/88

  SCHWABE v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 6806/06

  It is clear that B. was not a public figure or a politician but an ordinary person who had been the subject of criminal proceedings (see Schwabe v. Austria, 28 August 1992, § 32, Series A no. 242-B).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 6806/06

  Unlike the latter, the former inevitably and knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their words and deeds by journalists and the public at large, and they must consequently display a greater degree of tolerance (see, for example, Lingens v. Austria, cited above, § 42; Incal v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 54, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; and Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 46, Series A no. 236).

 
• EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 41205/98

  TAMMER v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 6806/06

  In the cases in which the Court has had to balance the protection of private life against freedom of expression, it has stressed the contribution made by photos or articles in the press to a debate of general interest (see Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, §§ 59 et seq., ECHR 2001-I; News Verlags GmbH & Co. KG v. Austria, cited above, §§ 52 et seq.; and Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG v. Austria, no. 34315/96, §§ 33 et seq., 26 February 2002).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 6806/06

  The need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, for example, Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 41, Series A no. 103, and Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 31457/96

  NEWS VERLAGS GmbH & Co. KG v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 6806/06

  In particular, it must determine whether the interference in issue was "proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued" and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it were "relevant and sufficient" (see Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), cited above, § 62; Lingens, cited above, § 40; Barfod v. Denmark, 22 February 1989, § 28, Series A no. 149; Janowski, cited above, § 30; and News Verlags GmbH & Co.KG v. Austria, no. 31457/96, § 52, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 6806/06

  The Court concludes therefore that the interference was "prescribed by law" (see Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 34, ECHR 2002-II; Selistö v. Finland, no. 56767/00, § 34, 16 November 2004 and Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland, no. 53678/00, § 43, ECHR 2004-X, Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, cited above, § 58).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 76682/01

  P4 RADIO HELLE NORGE ASA contre la NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 6806/06

  This interpretation was also in line with the Court's case-law (see, for example, Z v. Finland, 25 February 1997, § 99, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I, and P4 Radio Hele Norge ASA v. Norway (dec.), no. 76682/01, ECHR 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 53678/00

  Karhuvaara und Iltalehti / Finnland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 6806/06

  The Court concludes therefore that the interference was "prescribed by law" (see Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 34, ECHR 2002-II; Selistö v. Finland, no. 56767/00, § 34, 16 November 2004 and Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland, no. 53678/00, § 43, ECHR 2004-X, Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, cited above, § 58).
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 6806/06

  Nor is the European Court called upon to examine whether arguments are adequately met (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 61, Series A no. 288).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)
• EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11508/85

  BARFOD c. DANEMARK

• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 29576/09

  LAHTONEN v. FINLAND

  The Court thus found, in one case, that the use of certain terms in relation to an individual's private life was not "justified by considerations of public concern" and that those terms did not "[bear] on a matter of general importance" (see Tammer, cited above, § 68) and went on to hold that there had not been a violation of Article 10. In another case, however, the Court attached particular importance to the fact that the subject in question was a news item of "major public concern" and that the published photographs "did not disclose any details of [the] private life" of the person in question (see Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, cited above, § 37) and held that there had been a violation of Article 10. In a group of Finnish cases the Court found that a private person could, by her behaviour, be taken to have entered the public domain and that the disclosure of her identity in a newspaper report had a direct bearing on matters of public interest (see Flinkkilä and Others v. Finland, cited above, §§ 83 and 85; Tuomela and Others v. Finland, no. 25711/04, §§ 56 and 58, 6 April 2010; Jokitaipale and Others v. Finland, no. 43349/05, §§ 71 and 73, 6 April 2010; Soila v. Finland, no. 6806/06, §§ 68 and 70, 6 April 2010; and Iltalehti and Karhuvaara v. Finland, no. 6372/06, §§ 60 and 62, 6 April 2010).