Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37520/07   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2010,63330
EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37520/07 (https://dejure.org/2010,63330)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06.07.2010 - 37520/07 (https://dejure.org/2010,63330)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. Juli 2010 - 37520/07 (https://dejure.org/2010,63330)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,63330) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    NISKASAARI AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
    Struck out of the list Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 10 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Pecuniary damage - award Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (21)

  • EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

    RUMYANA IVANOVA v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37520/07
    The Court observes that responsible journalism requires checking of sources from the standpoint of their accuracy in order to prevent factual errors (see, mutatis mutandis, Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 65, 14 February 2008).

    The Court would observe in this connection that in view of the margin of appreciation left to Contracting States a criminal measure as a response to defamation cannot, as such, be considered disproportionate to the aim pursued (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-..., Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-II and Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 68, 14 February 2008).

  • EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

    SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37520/07
    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), 26 April 1979, § 62, Series A no. 30; 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, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

    JERSILD v. DENMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37520/07
    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 based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298).
  • EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 31457/96

    NEWS VERLAGS GmbH & Co. KG v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37520/07
    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), 26 April 1979, § 62, Series A no. 30; 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, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

    CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37520/07
    In this connection, the Court recalls that the imposition of a prison sentence for a press offence will be compatible with journalists' freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 only in exceptional circumstances, notably where other fundamental rights have been impaired, as for example, in the case of hate speech or incitement to violence (see CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 115, ECHR 2004-XI; and Dlugolecki v. Poland, no. 23806/03, § 47, 24 February 2009).
  • EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11508/85

    BARFOD c. DANEMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37520/07
    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), 26 April 1979, § 62, Series A no. 30; 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, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

    PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37520/07
    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, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

    LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37520/07
    The Court would observe in this connection that in view of the margin of appreciation left to Contracting States a criminal measure as a response to defamation cannot, as such, be considered disproportionate to the aim pursued (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-..., Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-II and Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 68, 14 February 2008).
  • EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 53984/00

    RADIO FRANCE ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37520/07
    The Court would observe in this connection that in view of the margin of appreciation left to Contracting States a criminal measure as a response to defamation cannot, as such, be considered disproportionate to the aim pursued (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-..., Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-II and Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 68, 14 February 2008).
  • EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 25149/03

    Rechtssache V. H. gegen die NIEDERLANDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37520/07
    In deciding whether or not it should strike the length of proceedings complaint out of its list, the Court will examine the terms of the declaration made by the Government in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular its judgments in cases such as Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC] (no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006); Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX), Kalanyos and Others v. Romania ((no. 57884/00, § 25, 26 April 2007)), and K.K. v. Finland ((striking out), no. 7779/04, 27 November 2007).
  • EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 53678/00

    Karhuvaara und Iltalehti / Finnland

  • EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

    NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  • EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

    PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

    NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

    FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 53487/99

    MERIAKRI v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 57884/00

    KALANYOS AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 25072/02

    RIIHIKALLIO AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  • EGMR, 24.07.2007 - 68050/01

    EKHOLM v. FINLAND

  • EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 7779/04

    K.K. v. FINLAND

  • EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 23667/06

    RAFAEL AHLSKOG v. FINLAND

  • EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 62716/09

    LOZOWSKA c. POLOGNE

    En l'espèce, la Cour note que la requérante a été déclarée coupable d'un délit et condamnée au paiement d'une amende pénale ce qui, en soi, confère aux mesures prises à son encontre un degré élevé de gravité (voir, mutatis mutandis, l'arrêt Lehideux et Isorni c. France du 23 septembre 1998, Recueil 1998-VII, § 57, Niskasaari et autres c. Finlande, no 37520/07, § 77, 6 juillet 2010).
  • EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 184/06

    SAARISTO AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

    Nevertheless, when a statement, whether qualified as defamatory or insulting by the domestic authorities, is made in the context of a public debate, the bringing of criminal proceedings by a public prosecutor (like in other Finnish cases, see for example Niskasaari and Others v. Finland, no. 37520/07, § 77, 6 July 2010 and Ruokanen and Others v. Finland, no. 45130/06, § 50, 6 April 2010) against the maker of the statement entails the risk that a prison sentence might be imposed.
  • EGMR, 21.12.2021 - 66299/10

    BANASZCZYK c. POLOGNE

    En l'espèce, elle observe que le requérant a été déclaré coupable d'un délit et condamné au paiement d'une amende pénale ce qui, en soi, confère aux mesures prises contre lui un degré élevé de gravité (voir, mutatis mutandis, Lehideux et Isorni c. France, 23 septembre 1998, § 57, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-VII, et Niskasaari et autres c. Finlande, no 37520/07, § 77, 6 juillet 2010).
  • EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 53421/10

    JIMÉNEZ LOSANTOS c. ESPAGNE

    En ce qui concerne la condamnation prononcée, le requérant a été déclaré coupable d'un délit continu d'injures graves assorties de publicité et condamné au paiement d'une amende pénale ce qui, en soi, confère aux mesures prises à son encontre un degré élevé de gravité (voir mutatis mutandis, les arrêts Lehideux et Isorni c. France, 23 septembre 1998, § 67, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-VII, et Niskasaari et autres c. Finlande, no 37520/07, § 77, 6 juillet 2010).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 42914/16

    SAYGILI c. TURQUIE

    Faisant ensuite référence aux résolutions et recommandations de l'Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l'Europe concernant la décriminalisation de la diffamation (Résolution no 1577, 4 octobre 2007, « Vers une dépénalisation de la diffamation ", §§ 11, 13 et 17, Recommandation no 1814, 4 octobre 2007, « Vers une dépénalisation de la diffamation ", § 1, et Recommandation no 1897, 27 janvier 2010, « Respect de la liberté des médias ", § 11) ainsi qu'aux arrêts de la Cour, qui, selon elle, soulignaient la nécessité pour les États membres de décriminaliser l'insulte (Niskasaari et autres c. Finlande, no 37520/07, § 77, 6 juillet 2010, et Sabanovic c. Montenegro et Serbie, no 5995/06, § 43, 31 mai 2011), la Cour constitutionnelle poursuivit comme suit:.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht