Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 06.11.2003 - 40284/98 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2003,25129) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KRONE VERLAG GmbH & Co. KG (no. 2) v. AUSTRIA
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings (englisch) - Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(englisch)
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 40284/98
- EGMR, 06.11.2003 - 40284/98
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93
BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2003 - 40284/98
Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (see Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, p. 28, § 63; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-III; Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt v. Austria, no. 28525/95, § 46, 26 February 2002). - EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 28525/95
UNABHÄNGIGE INITIATIVE INFORMATIONSVIELFALT v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2003 - 40284/98
Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (see Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, p. 28, § 63; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-III; Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt v. Austria, no. 28525/95, § 46, 26 February 2002). - EGMR, 25.03.1985 - 8734/79
Barthold ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2003 - 40284/98
According to its well-established case-law, 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 are "relevant and sufficient" (see Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 June 1986, Series A no. 103, pp. 25-26, § 40; and Barthold v. Germany, judgment of 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, p. 21, § 43). - EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88
THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2003 - 40284/98
Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (see Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, p. 28, § 63; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-III; Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt v. Austria, no. 28525/95, § 46, 26 February 2002). - EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91
TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2003 - 40284/98
The Court considers that the coercive indemnity interfered with the applicant company's rights under Article 10 and refers in this respect to the case of Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, § 35), where the Court found that the award of damage of a particularly high amount constituted an interference with Article 10.