Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 07.09.2017 - 60607/08 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,32628) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KARZHEV v. BULGARIA
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
KARZHEV v. BULGARIA
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 07.09.2017 - 60607/08
- EGMR, 24.04.2019 - 60607/08
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96
NIKULA c. FINLANDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.09.2017 - 60607/08
A public official is certainly entitled to have his reputation protected, but the requirements of that protection have to be weighed against the interests of open discussion of political and social issues, since exceptions to freedom of expression must be interpreted narrowly (see, for example, Janowski, cited above, § 33, and Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-II). - EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 23954/10
Zur Meinungsfreiheit in Ungarn
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.09.2017 - 60607/08
Finally, the domestic courts did not assess whether the contested statements were value judgments and if they were, whether there was a sufficient "factual basis" for such value judgments (see, for example, Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, §§ 155-157, ECHR 2015).The Court has on a number of occasions said that in determining whether an interference with the right to freedom of expression was justified, it has to satisfy itself, inter alia, that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention (see, for example, Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298, and Uj v. Hungary, no. 23954/10, § 19, 19 July 2011); for the reasons above it does not consider that this was the case here (see Cholakov v. Bulgaria, no. 20147/06, § 32, 1 October 2013). - EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89
JERSILD v. DENMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.09.2017 - 60607/08
Finally, the domestic courts did not assess whether the contested statements were value judgments and if they were, whether there was a sufficient "factual basis" for such value judgments (see, for example, Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, §§ 155-157, ECHR 2015).The Court has on a number of occasions said that in determining whether an interference with the right to freedom of expression was justified, it has to satisfy itself, inter alia, that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention (see, for example, Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298, and Uj v. Hungary, no. 23954/10, § 19, 19 July 2011); for the reasons above it does not consider that this was the case here (see Cholakov v. Bulgaria, no. 20147/06, § 32, 1 October 2013).