Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OBUKHOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 34736/03
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 34736/03

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 34736/03

  Not only does it have the task of imparting such information and ideas: the public also has a right to receive them (see, among many other authorities, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, §§ 59 and 62, ECHR 1999-III, and Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 34736/03

  Although Article 10 does not prohibit prior restraints on publication or bans on distribution as such, the Court emphasises that the dangers which restrictions of that kind pose for a democratic society are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny, which it will apply in its examination of the instant case (see Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 42, ECHR 2004-IV; Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 56, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Observer and Guardian, cited above, § 60).
• EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 51279/99

  Frankreich wegen Verletzung der Pressefreiheit zu Schadensersatz verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 34736/03

  Not only does it have the task of imparting such information and ideas: the public also has a right to receive them (see, among many other authorities, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, §§ 59 and 62, ECHR 1999-III, and Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-V).

 
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00

  ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 34736/03

  Although Article 10 does not prohibit prior restraints on publication or bans on distribution as such, the Court emphasises that the dangers which restrictions of that kind pose for a democratic society are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny, which it will apply in its examination of the instant case (see Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 42, ECHR 2004-IV; Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 56, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Observer and Guardian, cited above, § 60).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 34736/03

  It agrees with the applicant that the injunction at issue was a disservice to the authority of the judiciary because it reduced transparency of the proceedings and may have given rise to doubts about the court's impartiality, for "justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done" (see De Cubber v. Belgium, judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, p. 14, § 26).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 34736/03

  As to the existence of an interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression, the Court reiterates that, in so far as the preliminary injunction has the effect of preventing journalists from engaging in research and publications on the subject to which it applied, the journalists may claim to be "victims" of that measure (see, as a classic authority, Times Newspaper Ltd., The Sunday Times, Harold Evans v. the United Kingdom, no. 6538/74, Commission decision of 21 March 1975, Decisions and Reports 2, p. 90; and Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, §§ 9 and 49, Series A no. 216).