Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PRUNEA v. ROMANIA

  No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PRUNEA c. ROUMANIE

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [FRA]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 55495/08

  GENNER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 47881/11

  For these reasons, he was required to display a greater degree of tolerance (for similar reasoning, see, among the most recent authorities, Genner v. Austria, no. 55495/08, § 35, 12 January 2016).

  The Court is therefore satisfied that in the particular circumstances of the present case, the imposed sanction cannot be found to have been disproportionately severe (see, mutatis mutandis, Dorota Kania v. Poland (no. 2), no. 44436/13, § 83, 4 October 2016 and Genner v. Austria, no. 55495/08, § 49, 12 January 2016), and cannot be considered to have been capable of having a "chilling", dissuasive effect on the applicant's exercise of his right to freedom of expression.

  For these reasons, he was required to display a greater degree of tolerance (see, among the most recent authorities, Genner v. Austria, no. 55495/08, § 35, 12 January 2016).

• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 47881/11

  Where the balancing exercise between those two rights has been undertaken by the national authorities in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, the Court would require strong reasons to substitute its view for that of the domestic courts (see MGN Limited, cited above, §§ 150 and 155, and Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06 and 3 others, § 57, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 14991/02

  MINELLI c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 47881/11

  Accordingly, whilst a private individual unknown to the public may claim particular protection of his or her right to private life, the same is not true of public figures (see Minelli v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 14991/02, 14 June 2005, and Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 55, 30 March 2010) in respect of whom limits of critical comment are wider, as they are inevitably and knowingly exposed to public scrutiny and must therefore display a particularly high degree of tolerance (see Ayhan Erdogan v. Turkey, no. 39656/03, § 25, 13 January 2009, and Kuli?› v. Poland, no. 15601/02, § 47, 18 March 2008; see also Milisavljevic v. Serbia, no. 50123/06, §§ 32-34, 4 April 2017 and Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos.

 
• EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02

  KULIS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 47881/11

  Accordingly, whilst a private individual unknown to the public may claim particular protection of his or her right to private life, the same is not true of public figures (see Minelli v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 14991/02, 14 June 2005, and Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 55, 30 March 2010) in respect of whom limits of critical comment are wider, as they are inevitably and knowingly exposed to public scrutiny and must therefore display a particularly high degree of tolerance (see Ayhan Erdogan v. Turkey, no. 39656/03, § 25, 13 January 2009, and Kuli?› v. Poland, no. 15601/02, § 47, 18 March 2008; see also Milisavljevic v. Serbia, no. 50123/06, §§ 32-34, 4 April 2017 and Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 47881/11

  40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 108-113, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 19382/08

  LYKIN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 47881/11

  Moreover, the Court has also held that in the field of political debate, political invective often spills over into the personal sphere; such are the hazards of politics and the free debate of ideas, which are the guarantees of a democratic society (see, among the most recent authorities, Lykin v. Ukraine, no. 19382/08, § 29, 12 January 2017).
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 53139/11

  DO CARMO DE PORTUGAL E CASTRO CÂMARA v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 47881/11

  The Court, however, has stated that persons taking part in a public debate on a matter of general concern are allowed to have recourse to a degree of exaggeration or even provocation, or in other words to make somewhat immoderate statements (see, mutatis mutandis, Do Carmo de Portugal e Castro Câmara v. Portugal, no. 53139/11, § 43, 4 October 2016), and the instant case is about exactly that.
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 50123/06

  MILISAVLJEVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 47881/11

  Accordingly, whilst a private individual unknown to the public may claim particular protection of his or her right to private life, the same is not true of public figures (see Minelli v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 14991/02, 14 June 2005, and Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 55, 30 March 2010) in respect of whom limits of critical comment are wider, as they are inevitably and knowingly exposed to public scrutiny and must therefore display a particularly high degree of tolerance (see Ayhan Erdogan v. Turkey, no. 39656/03, § 25, 13 January 2009, and Kuli?› v. Poland, no. 15601/02, § 47, 18 March 2008; see also Milisavljevic v. Serbia, no. 50123/06, §§ 32-34, 4 April 2017 and Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos.

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 08.02.2024 - C-633/22

  Real Madrid Club de Fútbol - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle …

  In einigen Urteilen verwendet der EGMR den Ausdruck ",chilling", dissuasive effect", vgl. EGMR, 27. Juni 2017, Ghiulfer Predescu/Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2017:0627JUD002975109, § 61), und EGMR, 8. Januar 2019, Prunea/Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2019:0108JUD004788111, § 38), ins Deutsche schlicht als "abschreckende Wirkung" oder "Einschüchterungseffekt" übersetzt.
• EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 25200/11

  DICKINSON c. TURQUIE

  It is clear that the Convention does not protect gratuitous insults (see Palomo Sanchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06 and 3 others, § 67, ECHR 2011; Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, §§ 33 and 34, ECHR 1999-I; Lesník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, §§ 58-61, ECHR 2003-IV; Vitrenko and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 23510/02, 16 December 2008; Annen v. Germany (no. 6), no. 3779/11, §§ 27-31, 18 October 2018; and Prunea v. Romania, no. 47881/11, §§ 31-37, 8 January 2019).
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 36889/18

  CAMELIA BOGDAN c. ROUMANIE

  Ensuite, la Cour rappelle avoir été déjà saisie de plusieurs affaires roumaines, sur le terrain des articles 8 ou 10 de la Convention, dans lesquelles les intéressés avaient obtenu réparation de leurs préjudices causés par voie de presse, par le biais de l'action civile en responsabilité délictuelle (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Aurelian Oprea c. Roumanie, no 12138/08, §§ 24-28, 19 janvier 2016 ; Rusu c. Roumanie, no 25721/04, §§ 12-13, 8 mars 2016 ; Ghiulfer Predescu c. Roumanie, no 29751/09, §§ 9-23, 27 juin 2017 ; et Prunea c. Roumanie, no 47881/11, §§ 7-16, 8 janvier 2019).

 
• EGMR, 24.05.2022 - 45014/16

  PRETORIAN c. ROUMANIE

  Dès lors, la Cour conclut qu'il n'est pas déraisonnable de considérer que la sanction infligée est relativement modérée et ne produit pas un effet réellement dissuasif sur l'exercice de la liberté du requérant (voir, mutatis mutandis, Prunea c. Roumanie, no 47881/11, § 38, 8 janvier 2019).
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 49108/11

  SAMOYLOVA v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, whilst a private individual unknown to the public may claim particular protection of his or her right to private life, the same is not true of public figures in respect of whom limits of critical comment are wider, as they are inevitably and knowingly exposed to public scrutiny and must therefore display a greater degree of tolerance (see Milisavljevic v. Serbia, no. 50123/06, § 34, 4 April 2017, and Prunea v. Romania, no. 47881/11, § 30, 8 January 2019).
• EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 21974/16

  VEREIN GEGEN TIERFABRIKEN SCHWEIZ (VGT) ET KESSLER c. SUISSE

  Les principes généraux concernant la diffamation d'un homme politique ont été résumés dans Prunea c. Roumanie (no 47881/11, §§ 25-30, 8 janvier 2019).
• EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 29497/13

  STAN c. ROUMANIE

  Elle rejoint le tribunal départemental quant à ce constat (paragraphe 8 ci-dessus ; voir, a contrario, Prunea c. Roumanie, no 47881/11, § 31, 8 janvier 2019, et Andreescu c. Roumanie, no 19452/02, § 91, 8 juin 2010).