Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  APPLEBY ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 10 Non-violation de l'art. 11 Non-violation de l'art. 13 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  APPLEBY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  No violation of Art. 10 No violation of Art. 11 No violation of Art. 13 (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.10.2002 - 44306/98
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 44306/98

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 17.10.1986 - 9532/81

  REES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 44306/98

  Nor must such an obligation be interpreted in such a way as to impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities (see, inter alia, Rees v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 17 October 1986, Series A no. 106, p. 15, § 37, and Osman v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, pp. 3159-60, § 116).

• EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06

  MOUVEMENT RAËLIEN SUISSE c. SUISSE

  The present case can also be distinguished from that of Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 44306/98, ECHR 2003-VI), which concerned the use of space belonging to a private company, and from the Women On Waves case concerning the denial of authorisation for a ship to enter a State's territorial waters - space that was "public and open by its very nature" (cited above, § 40).

  In this respect the case has certain similarities to that of Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 44306/98, ECHR 2003-VI), in which the restriction on the applicants" ability to communicate their views was limited to the entrance areas and passageways of a shopping mall and in which the Court's conclusion that the State was not in breach of its positive obligations under Article 10 was in part founded on the fact that the applicants had not been prevented from disseminating those views in other parts of the town or by other means.

  These considerations are relevant in the present case, as they were in Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 44306/98, ECHR 2003-VI).

  [8] This issue was addressed in regard to access to private space in Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 44306/98, ECHR 2003-VI), with reference to the positions of the US Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Canada.

  [15] Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44306/98, §§ 47-49, ECHR 2003-VI, referring to Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. [United States Supreme Court Reports] 501.

• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  The paper compared Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment (no. 44306/98, ECHR 2003-VI), which emphasised the value of access to other media, and the above-cited Murphy case which did not accept arguments based on VgT.

  The Court notes, in this respect, the other media which remain open to the present applicant and it recalls that access to alternative media is key to the proportionality of a restriction on access to other potentially useful media (Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44306/98, § 48, ECHR 2003-VI; and Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland, cited above, §§ 73-75).

• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Le Gouvernement fait remarquer que les requérants ne sont pas des journalistes, et ne devraient par conséquent pas bénéficier du niveau élevé de protection accordé à la presse au titre de l'article 10. La Cour considère cependant que, dans une société démocratique, même des petits groupes militants non officiels, comme London Greenpeace, doivent pouvoir mener leurs activités de manière effective et qu'il existe un net intérêt général à autoriser de tels groupes et les particuliers en dehors du courant dominant à contribuer au débat public par la diffusion d'informations et d'opinions sur des sujets d'intérêt général comme la santé et l'environnement (voir, mutatis mutandis, Bowman c. Royaume-Uni, arrêt du 19 février 1998, Recueil 1998-I, et Appleby et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 44306/98, CEDH 2003-VI).

 
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 15.07.2021 - C-401/19

  Generalanwalt Saugmandsgaard Øe: Art. 17 der Richtlinie 2019/790 über das …

  Vgl. zu den "positiven Verpflichtungen" aus Art. 10 EMRK u. a. EGMR, 6. Mai 2003, Appleby/Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2003:0506JUD004430698, § 39), und EGMR, 16. Dezember 2008, Khurshid Mustafa/Schweden (CE:ECHR:2008:1216JUD002388306, § 31).
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 1562/10

  REMUSZKO v. POLAND

  The court referred to the Court's judgment in the case of Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44306/98, ECHR 2003-VII. It shared the Court's view that the principles governing the exercise of the freedom of expression were also applicable to commercial speech.

  Genuine, effective exercise of the freedom of expression does not depend merely on the State's duty not to interfere, but may require positive measures of protection, even in the sphere of relations between individuals see Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, no. 39293/98, § 38, 29 February 2000; and Wojtas-Kaleta v. Poland, no. 20436/02, § 43, 16 July 2009, concerning the obligation on the State to protect freedom of expression in the employment context; or Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44306/98, ECHR 2003-VI, where the Court examined the scope of the State's positive obligations in the regulation of the effective exercise of the freedom of expression in horizontal relations between private parties).

• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 28727/11

  KUDESHKINA v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  They referred to Osman v. the United Kingdom (28 October 1998, § 116, Reports 1998-VIII), and Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 44306/98, § 40, ECHR 2003-VI) in support of this statement.
• EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 24738/19

  GASI AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Genuine, effective exercise of this freedom does not depend merely on the State's duty not to interfere, but may require positive measures of protection, even in the sphere of relations between individuals (see Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 43, ECHR 2000-III; Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44306/98, § 39, ECHR 2003-VI; Dink v. Turkey, nos.