Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RUSU v. ROMANIA

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

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

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2016 - 25721/04

  But perhaps there is something else in the general principles of Pentikäinen (even if it is quoted without going into specifics, mutatis mutandis) that justifies the non-violation of Article 10. The "case-law cited" in Pentikäinen is Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, and so on.

  [1] The term "responsible journalism" was used in 2007 in Flux and Samson v. Moldova, no. 28700/03, 23 October 2007 to explain what is said in Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 63, ECHR 1999-III).

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2016 - 25721/04

  But perhaps there is something else in the general principles of Pentikäinen (even if it is quoted without going into specifics, mutatis mutandis) that justifies the non-violation of Article 10. The "case-law cited" in Pentikäinen is Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, and so on.

  "The Court also reiterates that the protection afforded by Article 10 of the Convention to journalists is subject to the proviso that they act in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the tenets of responsible journalism (see, mutatis mutandis, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], cited above, § 65; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54,...etc.)".

• EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 28700/03

  FLUX AND SAMSON v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2016 - 25721/04

  [1] The term "responsible journalism" was used in 2007 in Flux and Samson v. Moldova, no. 28700/03, 23 October 2007 to explain what is said in Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 63, ECHR 1999-III).

 
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2016 - 25721/04

  It protects journalists" right to divulge information on issues of general interest provided that they are acting in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and provide "reliable and precise" information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see, in particular, the Goodwin judgment cited above, p. 500, § 39; the Schwabe v. Austria judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-B, p. 34, § 34; and, as an example of a finding to the contrary on the facts, Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313, p. 18, § 37).".
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2016 - 25721/04

  The relevant provisions of the Civil and Criminal Codes concerning insult and defamation and liability for damage, in force at the material time, as well as the subsequent amendments to them, are described in CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania ([GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2004-XI) and Timciuc v. Romania ((dec.), no. 28999/03, §§ 95-97, 12 October 2010).
• EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 51279/99

  Frankreich wegen Verletzung der Pressefreiheit zu Schadensersatz verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2016 - 25721/04

  The applicant reiterated that when publishing the disputed article, he had relied, in good faith, on official information which he had had no obligation or possibility of verifying (he cited Selistö v. Finland, no. 56767/00, 16 November 2004 and Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 65, ECHR 2002-V); and the article had not included any value judgments nor any personal opinions concerning the criminal liability of S.A.
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13704/88

  SCHWABE v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2016 - 25721/04

  It protects journalists" right to divulge information on issues of general interest provided that they are acting in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and provide "reliable and precise" information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see, in particular, the Goodwin judgment cited above, p. 500, § 39; the Schwabe v. Austria judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-B, p. 34, § 34; and, as an example of a finding to the contrary on the facts, Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313, p. 18, § 37).".
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 28999/03

  TIMCIUC v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2016 - 25721/04

  The relevant provisions of the Civil and Criminal Codes concerning insult and defamation and liability for damage, in force at the material time, as well as the subsequent amendments to them, are described in CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania ([GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2004-XI) and Timciuc v. Romania ((dec.), no. 28999/03, §§ 95-97, 12 October 2010).

• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 931/13

  SATAKUNNAN MARKKINAPÖRSSI OY AND SATAMEDIA OY v. FINLAND

  "Responsible journalism" has recently been used as one of the factors to grant a wider margin of appreciation, resulting in undermining the freedom of the press (see Rusu v. Romania, no. 25721/04, § 24, 8 March 2016, where Pentikäinen was reinterpreted and extensively applied; Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, §§ 49-54, ECHR 2016; Salihu and Others v. Sweden (dec.), no. 33628/15, §§ 53-56, 10 May 2016; Kunitsyna v. Russia, no. 9406/05, § 45, 13 December 2016; and Travaglio v. Italy (dec.), no. 64746/14, § 36, 24 January 2017).
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 49132/11

  DOROTA KANIA c. POLOGNE

  Le journalisme responsable, malgré la signification apparente apparemment innocente de ce terme, impose un devoir qui (comme en l'espèce et comme l'ont démontré, ces derniers mois, les arrêts Bédat c. Suisse ([GC], no 56925/08, CEDH 2016), Rusu c. Roumanie (no 25721/04, 8 mars 2016), Erdtmann c. Allemagne (déc.), no 56328/10, 5 janvier 2016, et Salihu et autres c. Suède ((déc.), no 33628/15, 10 mai 2016), sapent la liberté journalistique nécessaire à une démocratie solide.

  J'ai eu le triste devoir et la triste responsabilité de commenter le contexte plus large de ce jeu linguistique dans une opinion séparée écrite conjointement avec ma distinguée collègue, la juge Tsotsoria (dans l'affaire Rusu c. Roumanie, no 25721/04, 8 mars 2016).

• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 8964/18

  AXEL SPRINGER SE v. GERMANY

  The Court has held that the legal obligation to publish a rectification may be considered a normal element of the legal framework governing the exercised of the freedom of expression by the media (see Kaperzy?„ski v. Poland, no. 43206/07, § 66, 3 April 2012; Rusu v. Romania, no. 25721/04, § 25, 8 March 2016; Marunic v. Croatia, no. 51706/11, §§ 50 and 54, 28 March 2017).

 
• EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 24016/05

  EKER c. TURQUIE

  Elle rappelle que l'obligation de publier une réponse rectificative est un élément normal du cadre légal régissant l'exercice de la liberté d'expression par la presse écrite et qu'elle ne peut, en tant que telle, être considérée comme excessive ou déraisonnable (Kaperzynski c. Pologne, no 43206/07, § 66, 3 avril 2012, et Rusu c. Roumanie, no 25721/04, § 25, 8 mars 2016).
• 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, 12.09.2023 - 84048/17

  EIGIRDAS AND VĮ "DEMOKRATIJOS PLETROS FONDAS" v. LITHUANIA

  Such an obligation makes it possible, for example, for a person who feels aggrieved by a press article to present his or her reply in a manner compatible with the editorial practice of the newspaper concerned (see Kaperzynski v. Poland, no. 43206/07, § 66, 3 April 2012, and Rusu v. Romania, no. 25721/04, § 25, 8 March 2016).
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 44436/13

  DOROTA KANIA v. POLAND (No. 2)

  The protection afforded by Article 10 of the Convention to journalists is subject to the proviso that they act in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the tenets of responsible journalism (see, mutatis mutandis, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I; Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, §§ 61 and 63-68, 19 April 2011; Rusu v. Romania, no. 25721/04, § 24, 8 March 2016; and Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), nos.