Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GAUNT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GAUNT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 26448/12

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 107, ECHR 2012; and, more recently, Haldimann and Others v. Switzerland, no. 21830/09, §§ 54 and 55, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 26448/12

  An interference with the right to freedom of expression will contravene Article 10 of the Convention unless it is "prescribed by law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 10 and, in addition to being proportionate, is "necessary in a democratic society" for achieving such aims (see, for example, The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 45, Series A no. 30 and Ärztekammer für Wien and Dorner v. Austria, no. 8895/10, § 53, 16 February 2016).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 26448/12

  Consequently, it is not for this Court, or for the national courts for that matter, to substitute their own views for those of the press as to what reporting technique should be adopted by journalists (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298 and Laranjeira Marques da Silva v. Portugal, no. 16983/06, § 51, 19 January 2010).

 
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 26448/12

  Furthermore, the Court has accepted that journalistic freedom covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see, for example, Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 38, Series A no. 313 and Thoma v. Luxembourg, cited above, §§ 45 and 467).
• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 26448/12

  Nevertheless, the Court has recognised that a clear distinction must be made between criticism and insult and that the latter may, in principle, justify sanctions, even where a matter of general public interest is concerned (see, for example, Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06, §§ 67 and 72, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 26448/12

  21279/02 and 36448/02, § 46, ECHR 2007-IV; Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 90, ECHR 2012; and Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 125, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 26448/12

  As regards the level of protection, there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on freedom of expression in two fields, namely political speech and matters of public interest (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 13.11.2019 - 39401/04

  MGN LIMITED AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 26448/12

  Given that the domestic authorities fully addressed the applicant's rights under Article 10 of the Convention in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, strong reasons will be required before the Court will substitute its view for that of the domestic courts (see MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, §§ 150 and 155, 18 January 2011; Palomo Sánchez and Others, cited above, § 57; Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos.

• EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 28470/12

  NIT S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  À cet égard, la Cour rappelle que, outre la substance des idées et informations exprimées, l'article 10 protège leur mode d'expression (Jersild, précité, § 31 ; voir aussi Stoll, précité, § 146, et Gaunt c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 26448/12, § 47, 6 septembre 2016).
• EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 3877/14

  TAMIZ v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In deciding whether that threshold has been met in the present case, the Court is inclined to agree with the national courts that while the majority of comments about which the applicant complains were undoubtedly offensive, for the large part they were little more than "vulgar abuse" of a kind - albeit belonging to a low register of style - which is common in communication on many Internet portals (see Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete, cited above, § 77) and which the applicant, as a budding politician, would be expected to tolerate (see, among many examples, Gaunt v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 26448/12, § 45, 6 September 2016, and Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, § 121, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).