Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SLOMKA v. POLAND

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Pressemitteilung)

  Arrêt Slomka c. Pologne - peine d'emprisonnement pour outrage au tribunal

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Pressemitteilung)

  Judgment Slomka v. Poland - sent to prison for contempt of court

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SLOMKA v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 66484/09

  MARIUSZ LEWANDOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 68924/12

  The Government also stressed that, unlike in the case of Mariusz Lewandowski v. Poland (no. 66484/09, 3 July 2012), the judges had not been called to assess the applicant's statements in so far as they might have insulted them personally but only in so far as they concerned the court as an institution.
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 68924/12

  Moreover, the Court has observed that proceedings held in an accused's absence are not in principle incompatible with the Convention if the person concerned can subsequently obtain from a court which has heard him a fresh determination of the merits of the charge, in respect of both law and fact (see, Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 31, Series A no. 277-A).
• RG, 15.11.1909 - I 485/08

  Transportversicherung. Schiffer.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 68924/12

  On 1 October 2008 the Cracow Court of Appeal (decision in case no. II AKz 485/08) held that punishment for conduct which interfered with the solemn nature of the court within the meaning of the above-mentioned section 49 was correct in the event of conduct which had insulted the court.

 
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 31451/03

  AÇIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 68924/12

  In its extensive case-law on freedom of expression, the Court has on many occasions held that protests, such as these taking the form of physically impeding certain activities, can constitute expressions of opinion within the meaning of Article 10 and that the arrest and detention of protesters can constitute interference with the right to freedom of expression (see Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 92, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 VII; Açik and Others v. Turkey, no. 31451/03, § 40, 13 January 2009; and Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 43425/98

  Meinungsfreiheit (konstitutive Bedeutung in der Demokratie; Eingriff; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 68924/12

  If the sole intent of any form of expression is to insult a court, or members of that court, an appropriate punishment would not, in principle, constitute a violation of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (see Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, § 34, 27 May 2003 with further references).
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 42461/13

  KARÁCSONY ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 68924/12

  42461/13 and 44357/13, § 120, 17 May 2016).

• EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10

  KARASTELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  It is also pertinent to reiterate, in view of the context being examined in the present case, that protests, including actions taking the form of physically impeding certain activities, can constitute expressions of opinion within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention (see Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 92, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 28, ECHR 1999-VIII; Lucas v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39013/02, 18 March 2003; Açik and Others v. Turkey, no. 31451/03, § 40, 13 January 2009; Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, §§ 69-71, 15 May 2014; and S?‚omka v. Poland, no. 68924/12, § 58, 6 December 2018; see also Chorherr v. Austria, 25 August 1993, §§ 7-8 and 23, Series A no. 266-B; Barraco v. France, no. 31684/05, §§ 26-27, 5 March 2009; and Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 20-22 and 85-86, ECHR 2015).