Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MARGULEV v. RUSSIA

  Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;(Art. 35-3-b) No significant disadvantage;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MARGULEV v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 300/11

  C.P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 15449/09

  The subjective perception must be justified on objective grounds (see, with further references, C.P. v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 300/11, § 42, 6 September 2016).
• EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 19219/07

  SYLKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 15449/09

  This scrutiny should encompass, among other things, such elements as contribution to a debate of general interest and whether a case involves the press or other news media (see, with further references, Sylka v. Poland (dec.), no. 19219/07, § 28, 3 June 2014).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 15449/09

  Seen in the context of the essential role of a free press in ensuring the proper functioning of a democratic society (see, among many other authorities, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 62, ECHR 2007-IV; see also paragraph 47 below), the alleged violation of Article 10 of the Convention in the present case concerns, in the Court's view, "important questions of principle".

 
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 27329/06

  ROSIIANU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 15449/09

  The Court reiterates the key importance of freedom of expression as one of the preconditions for a functioning democracy (see Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44306/98, § 39, ECHR 2003-VI, and Ro??iianu v. Romania, no. 27329/06, § 56, 24 June 2014).
• EGMR - 28473/12 (anhängig)

  KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 15449/09

  The Court is mindful of the fundamentally subsidiary role of the Convention system (see Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic [GC], nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12, § 175, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 25551/05

  KOROLEV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 15449/09

  A violation of the Convention may concern important questions of principle and thus cause a significant disadvantage regardless of pecuniary interest (see Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010-V).

• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 2840/10

  OOO MEMO v. RUSSIA

  In its judgments against Russia adopted subsequently to that in the case of Romanenko and Others, in the absence of a dispute between the parties regarding the existence of a legitimate aim, the Court, when examining complaints under Article 10 stemming from the defamation proceedings brought by a remand prison and its two officers (see Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 41, 4 April 2013), by a university (see Kharlamov v. Russia, no. 27447/07, § 25, 8 October 2015), by the Chief Military Prosecutor's Office of Russia (see Novaya Gazeta and Milashina, cited above, § 62), by the electoral commission and the body of the executive of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation as well as a regional branch of the United Russia party (see Ostanina v. Russia, no. 22169/11, § 19, 17 April 2018), or by the body of the executive of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation (see Margulev v. Russia, no. 15449/09, § 45, 8 October 2019, and Kommersant and Others v. Russia, nos. 37482/10 and 37486/10, 23 June 2020), focused on the assessment of proportionality of an interference.

  That did not alter its finding in another recent case that the same legitimate aim could be relied upon in respect of Moscow City Council, although its interest in protecting its "reputation" did not necessarily attract the same level of guarantees as that accorded to "the protection of the reputation... of others" within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 (see Margulev v. Russia, no. 15449/09, § 45, 8 October 2019).

• EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 22649/08

  OOO REGNUM v. RUSSIA

  Whereas the latter may have repercussions on one's dignity, the former are devoid of that moral dimension (see, in the context of defamation proceedings brought by public authorities, Margulev v. Russia, no. 15449/09, § 45, 8 October 2019).

  Whereas the latter may have repercussions on a person's dignity, the former is devoid of that moral dimension (see paragraph 66 of the judgment and Margulev v. Russia, no. 15449/09, § 45, 9 October 2019).

• EGMR, 21.03.2024 - 10103/20

  SIEC OBYWATELSKA WATCHDOG POLSKA v. POLAND

  Therefore, in cases concerning freedom of expression the application of this admissibility criterion should take due account of the importance of that freedom and should be subject to careful scrutiny by the Court (see Sy?‚ka v. Poland, no. 19219/07 (dec.) § 28, 3 June 2014; Margulev v. Russia, no. 15449/09, § 41, 8 October 2019 and ? eks v. Croatia, no. 39325/20, § 48, 3 February 2022).

 
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 3642/10

  MUKHIN v. RUSSIA

  Article 34 concerns not just direct victim or victims of an alleged violation, but also any indirect victim to whom the violation would cause harm or who would have a valid and personal interest in seeing it brought to an end (see Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, § 47, ECHR 2013 (extracts) and cases cited therein; compare Margulev v. Russia, no. 15449/09, §§ 36-38, 8 October 2019).
• EGMR, 23.02.2021 - 63687/14

  VILELA ET AUTRES c. PORTUGAL

  Cela étant, une personne ne saurait, en principe, se plaindre d'avoir subi une violation de ses droits dans le cadre d'une procédure à laquelle elle n'était pas partie (Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. et Di Stefano c. Italie [GC], no 38433/09, § 92, CEDH 2012, et Margulev c. Russie, no 15449/09, § 35, 8 octobre 2019).
• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 78873/13

  FREITAS RANGEL v. PORTUGAL

  However, in this case, it is prepared to assume that this aim can be relied on (see, mutatis mutandis, Margulev v. Russia, no. 15449/09, § 45, 8 October 2019, and the references therein).
• EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10

  KARASTELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Thus, although the second applicant was not found personally liable or placed under a threat of any penalty, in the circumstances of the present case the caution and order procedures did amount to "interferences" with her freedom of expression (compare with Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, §§ 92-93, ECHR 2012, and Margulev v. Russia, no. 15449/09, §§ 36-38, 8 October 2019).
• EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 44561/11

  RID NOVAYA GAZETA AND ZAO NOVAYA GAZETA v. RUSSIA

  Article 34 concerns not just the direct victim or victims of an alleged violation, but also any indirect victim to whom the violation would cause harm or who would have a valid and personal interest in seeing it brought to an end (see Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, § 47, ECHR 2013 (extracts) and cases cited therein; compare Margulev v. Russia, no. 15449/09, §§ 36-38, 8 October 2019).
• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 42182/11

  TOLMACHEV v. RUSSIA

  Reiterating that a careful distinction needs to be drawn between facts and value judgments given that the existence of facts can be demonstrated, whereas the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof (see CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 98, ECHR 2004-XI, and Margulev v. Russia, no. 15449/09, § 48, 8 October 2019), the Court observes that the District Court drew such a distinction in its judgment of 4 October 2010 in respect of one of the impugned statements.
• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 56109/13

  KAPUSTINA v. RUSSIA

  A violation of the Convention may concern important questions of principle and thus cause a significant disadvantage regardless of pecuniary interest (see Margulev v. Russia, no. 15449/09, § 40, 8 October 2019; Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010; Rinck v. France (dec.), no. 18774/09, 19 October 2010; Fernandez v. France (dec.), no. 65421/10, 17 January 2012; and Sylka v. Poland (dec.), no. 19219/07, 3 June 2014).
• EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 46173/15

  SHEVELEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 9266/14

  ANSHAKOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR - 16535/18 (anhängig)

  VAN BALLAER c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 64023/11

  INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTS v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 50690/11

  ORISHCHENKO AND REGION-36 v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 79709/13

  YORDANOV v. BULGARIA