Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LIETUVOS NACIONALINIS RADIJAS IR TELEVIZIJA AND TAPINAS AND CO LTD. v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 10 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 26132/95

  BERGENS TIDENDE ET AUTRES c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 27930/05

  On this point, the Court takes into consideration whether the research undertaken before making the defamatory statements was adequate to substantiate the impugned allegations (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 37, Series A no. 313), whether the allegations were presented in a reasonably balanced manner and whether the person defamed had an opportunity to defend himself or herself (see Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no. 26132/95, §§ 57-58, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 27930/05

  Furthermore, the Court finds the present case distinguishable from other applications under Article 10 of the Convention, involving big awards for non-pecuniary damages (see, by comparison, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, §§ 96-97, ECHR 2005-II) or criminal sanctions against the journalists (see CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re, cited above, §§ 111-117).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 27930/05

  The test of "necessity in a democratic society" requires the Court to determine whether the "interference" complained of corresponded to a "pressing social need", whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify it were relevant and sufficient (see Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 62, Series A no. 30).

 
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 27930/05

  Although formulated primarily with regard to the print media, these principles doubtless also apply to the audiovisual media (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 27930/05

  Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (see Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 27930/05

  On 17 February 2005 the first and second applicants lodged a joint appeal on points of law, relying on Article 2.24 (6) of the Civil Code and the Court's judgment in the case of Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1) (23 May 1991, Series A no. 204) and arguing, inter alia, that they had acted honestly in the interests of society and that, in their broadcast, they had merely expressed their opinion about S.J., who was a public person and for that reason enjoyed less privacy.
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 27930/05

  The Court has also emphasised that there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on the debate of questions of public interest (see, mutatis mutandis, Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 26, § 42, and Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 43, Series A no. 236).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 27930/05

  What matters for the Court is whether in those cassation appeals the applicants, "at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law", raised the complaints which they subsequently made to the Strasbourg Court (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 27930/05

  On this point, the Court takes into consideration whether the research undertaken before making the defamatory statements was adequate to substantiate the impugned allegations (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 37, Series A no. 313), whether the allegations were presented in a reasonably balanced manner and whether the person defamed had an opportunity to defend himself or herself (see Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no. 26132/95, §§ 57-58, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 27930/05

  This margin of appreciation is not, however, unlimited, but goes hand in hand with European supervision by the Court (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 58, ECHR 1999-III, and Cumpana and Mazare, cited above, § 88).

• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 23369/06

  BUTKEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  What matters for the Court is whether in those cassation appeals the applicant, "at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law", has raised the complaint which he subsequently made to Strasbourg Court (see Lietuvos Nacionalinis Radijas ir Televizija and Tapinas ir partneriai v. Lithuania, no. 27930/05, 6 July 2010; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I).