Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ROMANENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 11751/03
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 11751/03

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 51279/99

  Frankreich wegen Verletzung der Pressefreiheit zu Schadensersatz verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 11751/03

  Referring to the Court's case-law, the applicants insisted that the press should be able to rely on the content of official reports without having to undertake independent research (see Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 65, ECHR 2002-V).

  The Court has constantly held the view that the press "should normally be entitled, when contributing to public debate on matters of legitimate concern, to rely on the content of official reports without having to undertake independent research" (see Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 47, ECHR 2002-V; also Selistö v. Finland, no. 56767/00, § 60, 16 November 2004).

• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 53678/00

  Karhuvaara und Iltalehti / Finnland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 11751/03

  The Court acknowledges that there may be sound policy reasons to decide that public bodies should not have standing to sue in defamation in their own capacity; however, it is not its task to examine the domestic legislation in the abstract but rather consider the manner in which that legislation was applied to, or affected, the applicant in a particular case (see Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland, no. 53678/00, § 49, ECHR 2004-X).
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 56767/00

  SELISTO v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 11751/03

  The Court has constantly held the view that the press "should normally be entitled, when contributing to public debate on matters of legitimate concern, to rely on the content of official reports without having to undertake independent research" (see Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 47, ECHR 2002-V; also Selistö v. Finland, no. 56767/00, § 60, 16 November 2004).

 
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 11751/03

  As the Court has held on many occasions, reporting on matters relating to management of public resources lies at the core of the media's responsibility and the right of the public to receive information (see Busuioc v. Moldova, no. 61513/00, §§ 63-64 and 84, 21 December 2004; and CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 94-95, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 21.12.2004 - 61513/00

  BUSUIOC v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 11751/03

  As the Court has held on many occasions, reporting on matters relating to management of public resources lies at the core of the media's responsibility and the right of the public to receive information (see Busuioc v. Moldova, no. 61513/00, §§ 63-64 and 84, 21 December 2004; and CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 94-95, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 37406/03

  DYUNDIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 11751/03

  The Court therefore finds that the Russian courts failed to recognise that the present case involved a conflict between the right to freedom of expression and the protection of a reputation (see Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, § 33, 14 October 2008).
• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 14888/03

  GODLEVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 11751/03

  They confined their analysis to the discussion of the damage to the plaintiffs' reputation without giving any consideration to the Convention standard which requires very strong reasons for justifying restrictions on debates on questions of public interest (see Godlevskiy v. Russia, no. 14888/03, § 41, 23 October 2008, and Krasulya, cited above, § 38).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 11751/03

  Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no "democratic society" (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24, and Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 37, Series A no. 298).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 11751/03

  Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no "democratic society" (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24, and Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 37, Series A no. 298).
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 11751/03

  The Court reiterates its constant approach that a distinction needs to be made according to whether the statements emanate from a journalist or are quotations from others, since punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so (see Dyundin, cited above, §§ 29 and 34; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 77, ECHR 2004-XI; Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 65, Series A no. 239; and Jersild, cited above, § 35).