Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAMERE c. FRANCE

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 10 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAMERE v. FRANCE

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• IRIS Merlin (Kurzinformation)

  Mamère gegen Frankreich

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 12697/03
• EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 12697/03

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 12697/03

  The first is that the applicant's remarks concerned issues of general concern, namely, protection of the environment and public health (see, among other authorities, Hertel, cited above, § 47; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, ECHR 1999-III; VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, §§ 70 and 72, ECHR 2001-VI; Vides Aizsardzibas Klubs v. Latvia, no. 57829/00, § 42, 27 May 2004; and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, §§ 88-89, ECHR 2005-II), and how the French authorities dealt with those issues in the context of the Chernobyl disaster; indeed, they were part of an extremely important public debate focused in particular on the insufficient information the authorities gave the population regarding the levels of contamination to which they had been exposed and the public-health consequences of that exposure.
• EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 24699/94

  VgT VEREIN GEGEN TIERFABRIKEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 12697/03

  The first is that the applicant's remarks concerned issues of general concern, namely, protection of the environment and public health (see, among other authorities, Hertel, cited above, § 47; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, ECHR 1999-III; VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, §§ 70 and 72, ECHR 2001-VI; Vides Aizsardzibas Klubs v. Latvia, no. 57829/00, § 42, 27 May 2004; and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, §§ 88-89, ECHR 2005-II), and how the French authorities dealt with those issues in the context of the Chernobyl disaster; indeed, they were part of an extremely important public debate focused in particular on the insufficient information the authorities gave the population regarding the levels of contamination to which they had been exposed and the public-health consequences of that exposure.
• EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 51279/99

  Frankreich wegen Verletzung der Pressefreiheit zu Schadensersatz verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 12697/03

  However, the Court reiterates that people prosecuted as a result of comments they make about a topic of general interest must have an opportunity to absolve themselves of liability by establishing that they acted in good faith and, in the case of factual allegations, by proving they are true (see Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 48, Series A no. 236; see also Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 66, ECHR 2002-V).

 
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 53984/00

  RADIO FRANCE ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 12697/03

  On a number of occasions it has found that the nature and gravity of accusations against civil servants or former civil servants can lead it to conclude that measures taken in such a context are compatible with Article 10 (see, for example, Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, ECHR 2004-II, or Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 12697/03

  The first is that the applicant's remarks concerned issues of general concern, namely, protection of the environment and public health (see, among other authorities, Hertel, cited above, § 47; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, ECHR 1999-III; VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, §§ 70 and 72, ECHR 2001-VI; Vides Aizsardzibas Klubs v. Latvia, no. 57829/00, § 42, 27 May 2004; and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, §§ 88-89, ECHR 2005-II), and how the French authorities dealt with those issues in the context of the Chernobyl disaster; indeed, they were part of an extremely important public debate focused in particular on the insufficient information the authorities gave the population regarding the levels of contamination to which they had been exposed and the public-health consequences of that exposure.
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 12697/03

  The applicant considered that freedom to receive and communicate information and ideas should be unrestricted in a case like this, arguing that "the fact that the nuclear lobby is so powerful in France does not mean that it is unacceptable to express ideas that offend it or shock its supporters: democracy means pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, and Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298)".
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 12697/03

  He claimed that in a joking tone verging on "exaggeration", or even "provocation" (the applicant referred here to Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313), he had replied spontaneously with a "quip" to the mention of a serious subject brought up during a talk show, so it was unlikely that viewers would have taken his remarks at face value.
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 25716/94

  JANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 12697/03

  In Janowski v. Poland ([GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999-I) the Court stressed that civil servants must enjoy public confidence in conditions free of undue perturbation if they are to be successful in performing their tasks and it may prove necessary to protect them from offensive verbal attacks when on duty; this also applies to defamatory allegations concerning acts performed in the exercise of their duties (see, for example, Busuioc v. Moldova, no. 61513/00, § 64, 21 December 2004).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 12697/03

  However, the Court reiterates that people prosecuted as a result of comments they make about a topic of general interest must have an opportunity to absolve themselves of liability by establishing that they acted in good faith and, in the case of factual allegations, by proving they are true (see Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 48, Series A no. 236; see also Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 66, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 12697/03

  The applicant considered that freedom to receive and communicate information and ideas should be unrestricted in a case like this, arguing that "the fact that the nuclear lobby is so powerful in France does not mean that it is unacceptable to express ideas that offend it or shock its supporters: democracy means pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, and Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298)".

• BVerfG, 09.02.2007 - 1 BvR 3219/06

  Fehlende Rechtswegerschöpfung auch im fachgerichtlichen Hauptsacheverfahren gem …

  Auch ist als Bundesrecht von den Fachgerichten die Gewährleistung des Art. 10 der Konvention über den Schutz der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten (EMRK) zu beachten, so dass zu ihrer Auslegung ergangene Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (EGMR) weiteren Anhalt dafür bieten kann, in welchem Umfang Stellungnahmen des privaten Einzelnen gegenüber der Öffentlichkeit oder den Massenmedien innerhalb eines Live-Interviews des Fernsehens besonderen Anforderungen nach Distanzierung von aufgegriffenen Verdächtigungen oder zur Wahrung pressemäßiger Sorgfalt unterworfen werden dürfen (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 7. November 2006, Beschwerde-Nr. 12697/03, Mamere gegen Frankreich, Rn. 20 ff., EGMR…, Urteil vom 15. Februar 2005, Beschwerde-Nr. 68416/01, Steel und Morris gegen Großbritannien, Rn. 89 ff.; EGMR…, Urteil vom 29. März 2001, Beschwerde-Nr. 38423/97, Thoma gegen Luxemburg, Rn. 64 f.).
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 24261/05

  BACKES c. LUXEMBOURG

  Ce faisant, la Cour doit se convaincre que les autorités nationales ont appliqué des règles conformes aux principes consacrés à l'article 10 et ce, de surcroît, en se fondant sur une appréciation acceptable des faits pertinents (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Pedersen et Baadsgaard c. Danemark [GC], no 49017/99, §§ 68-71, CEDH 2004-XI ; Steel et Morris c. Royaume-Uni du 15 février 2005, no 68416/01, CEDH 2005-II, § 87, et Mamère c. France du 7 novembre 2006, no 12697/03, § 19).
• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 19353/03

  SAYGILI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  La Cour se réfère aux principes généraux qui se dégagent de sa jurisprudence en la matière (voir Handyside c. Royaume-Uni, arrêt du 7 décembre 1976, série A no 24, p. 23, § 49 ; Goodwin c. Royaume-Uni, arrêt du 27 mars 1996, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-II, p. 500, § 39 ; Bladet Tromsø et Stensaas c. Norvège [GC], no 21980/93, § 59, CEDH 1999-III ; De Haes et Gijsels c. Belgique, arrêt du 24 février 1997, Recueil 1997-I, pp. 233-234, § 37 ; Mamère c. France, no 12697/03, §§ 19-20, CEDH 2006-... ; Chemodurov c. Russie, no 72683/01, §§ 16-17 et 26, 31 juillet 2007).