Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHADIJA ISMAYILOVA v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 3)

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KHADIJA ISMAYILOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 64772/01

  LEEMPOEL AND S.A. ED. CINE REVUE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 35283/14

  Such reporting does not attract the robust protection of Article 10 afforded to the press and, in such cases, freedom of expression calls for a narrower interpretation (see Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, §§ 65-66, ECHR 2004-VI; Leempoel & S.A. ED. Ciné Revue v. Belgium, no. 64772/01, §§ 68 and 77, 9 November 2006; Hachette Filipacchi Associés (ICI PARIS) v. France, no. 12268/03, § 40, 23 July 2009; and MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, § 143, 18 January 2011).
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  DENISOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 35283/14

  Article 8 protects in addition the right to personal development, and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 95, 25 September 2018, with further references).
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 70434/12

  SOUSA GOUCHA v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 35283/14

  An attack on a person's reputation can also be made by touching upon a person's intimate characteristics which constitute profound parts of the person's identity, such as deliberate misrepresentation of a person's gender (see Sousa Goucha v. Portugal, no. 70434/12, § 27, 22 March 2016).

 
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 35283/14

  Taking those findings into account and having regard to the parties" submissions in the present case, the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 10 in the present case (compare Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 36919/02

  ARMONIENE v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 35283/14

  The Court reiterates that there is a fundamental distinction to be drawn between reporting facts - even if controversial - capable of contributing to a debate of general public interest in a democratic society, and making tawdry allegations about an individual's private life (see Armoniene v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, § 39, 25 November 2008).
• EGMR, 13.11.2019 - 39401/04

  MGN LIMITED AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 35283/14

  Such reporting does not attract the robust protection of Article 10 afforded to the press and, in such cases, freedom of expression calls for a narrower interpretation (see Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, §§ 65-66, ECHR 2004-VI; Leempoel & S.A. ED. Ciné Revue v. Belgium, no. 64772/01, §§ 68 and 77, 9 November 2006; Hachette Filipacchi Associés (ICI PARIS) v. France, no. 12268/03, § 40, 23 July 2009; and MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, § 143, 18 January 2011).
• EGMR, 03.12.2013 - 64520/10

  UNGVÁRY AND IRODALOM KFT. v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 35283/14

  While confirming the Article 10 right of members of the public to have access to a wide range of publications covering a variety of fields, the Court has stressed that in assessing in the context of a particular publication whether there is a public interest which justifies an interference with the right to respect for private life, the focus must be on whether the publication is in the interest of the public and not whether the public might be interested in reading it (see Mosley v. the United Kingdom, no. 48009/08, § 114, 10 May 2011, and Ungváry and Irodalom Kft v. Hungary, no. 64520/10, § 47, 3 December 2013).
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 37428/06

  BREMNER c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 35283/14

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 96, ECHR 2012, and Bremner v. Turkey, no. 37428/06, § 62, 13 October 2015).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 35283/14

  At the same time, it also includes a right to live privately, away from unwanted attention (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 95, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts), and Barbulescu v. Romania [GC], no. 61496/08, § 70, 5 September 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 35283/14

  In particular, the Court has held that the use of offensive expressions or cartoons, even as part of criticism relating to a matter of general interest, can be harmful to a person's reputation (see Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06 and 3 others, §§ 13, 15, 67 and 72-73, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …
• EGMR, 23.07.2009 - 12268/03

  HACHETTE FILIPACCHI ASSOCIES (ICI PARIS) c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48009/08

  Keine Pflicht zur Vorabbenachrichtigung bei Veröffentlichung privater …

• EGMR, 28.03.2024 - 35960/14

  MURSALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The relevant general principles concerning the right to reputation under Article 8 were summarised in Pfeifer v. Austria (no. 12556/03, §§ 33-37, 15 November 2007); Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan (no. 3) (no. 35283/14, §§ 35-39, 7 May 2020); and Abbasaliyeva (cited above, §§ 29-30).
• EGMR, 18.11.2021 - 27801/12

  MARINONI c. ITALIE

  Concernant la première expression, la Cour estime que cette expression, lue dans le contexte et insérée dans la globalité du récit, n'est pas justifié par un intérêt public et touche au contraire à la sphère privée de M. S.M. (Leempoel & S.A. ED. Ciné Revue c. Belgique, no 64772/01, §§ 72, 73 et 77, 9 novembre 2006, voir aussi Khadija Ismayilova c. Azerbaïdjan (no 3), no 35283/14, § 58, 7 mai 2020).
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 77940/17

  INDEX.HU ZRT v. HUNGARY

  As a consequence, in such cases, freedom of expression requires a narrower interpretation (see Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan (no. 3), no. 35283/14, § 58, 7 May 2020).
• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 37816/12

  AVAZ ZEYNALOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Having regard to the conclusions reached above under Articles 8, 10 and 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see paragraphs 92, 108 and 128 above) and the parties" submissions, the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of these complaints in the present case (compare Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014; Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan (no. 3), no. 35283/14, § 87, 7 May 2020; and Farzaliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 29620/07, § 73, 28 May 2020).