Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SZANYI v. HUNGARY

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SZANYI v. HUNGARY

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

Papierfundstellen

• NVwZ-RR 2018, 289

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 35863/10

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (Begründungspflicht bei der Jury: Erfüllung durch …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 35493/13

  A jury convicting a criminal in a criminal procedure is not obliged to give reasons for the verdict (see Saric v. Denmark (dec.), no 31913/96, 2 February 1999; Taxquet v. Belgium, [GC], no. 926/05, ECHR 2010; and Judge v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 35863/10, 8 February 2011) - it suffices that the accused understands the reasons for his or her conviction.
• EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 28255/07

  CUMHURIYET VAKFI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 35493/13

  Sometimes they are considered to be part of the proportionality test (see, for instance, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 95, ECHR 2005-II; Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, §§ 171 and 181, ECHR 2005-XIII; Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 83, 26 February 2009; Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 155, ECHR 2015; and Cumhuriyet Vakfi and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, § 59, 8 October 2013); sometimes they belong to the requirement of legality "prescribed by law" (see, for instance, the judgments in Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands (no. 38224/03, Chamber judgment of 31 March 2009 and Grand Chamber judgment of 14 September 2010, § 100); and sometimes they are applied without reference to any specific principle or words used in Article 10 (see, for instance, Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no. 39128/2005, § 46, 20 October 2009).
• EGMR, 02.02.1999 - 31913/96

  SARIC v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 35493/13

  A jury convicting a criminal in a criminal procedure is not obliged to give reasons for the verdict (see Saric v. Denmark (dec.), no 31913/96, 2 February 1999; Taxquet v. Belgium, [GC], no. 926/05, ECHR 2010; and Judge v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 35863/10, 8 February 2011) - it suffices that the accused understands the reasons for his or her conviction.

 
• EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 29492/05

  KUDESHKINA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 35493/13

  Sometimes they are considered to be part of the proportionality test (see, for instance, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 95, ECHR 2005-II; Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, §§ 171 and 181, ECHR 2005-XIII; Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 83, 26 February 2009; Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 155, ECHR 2015; and Cumhuriyet Vakfi and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, § 59, 8 October 2013); sometimes they belong to the requirement of legality "prescribed by law" (see, for instance, the judgments in Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands (no. 38224/03, Chamber judgment of 31 March 2009 and Grand Chamber judgment of 14 September 2010, § 100); and sometimes they are applied without reference to any specific principle or words used in Article 10 (see, for instance, Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no. 39128/2005, § 46, 20 October 2009).
• EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 38369/09

  SCHIPANI ET AUTRES CONTRE L'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 35493/13

  Thirdly, I note once again a complete inconsistency in the standards with regard to the provision of reasons for the authorities" decisions (see my concurring opinion in Schipani and Others v. Italy, no. 38369/09, 21 July 2015).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 35493/13

  The principles governing the issue at hand, as present in the Court's case-law, are outlined paragraphs 132 to 147 of Karácsony and Others (cited above) as well as in Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24) and Jerusalem v. Austria (no. 26958/95, §§ 36 and 40, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83

  MARKT INTERN VERLAG GMBH ET KLAUS BEERMANN c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 35493/13

  This is borne out not only by the words "conditions", "restrictions", "preventing" and "prevention" which appear in that provision, but also by the Court's considerations in the cases of The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (26 April 1979, Series A no. 30) and markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany (20 November 1989, Series A no. 165).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 35493/13

  The principles governing the issue at hand, as present in the Court's case-law, are outlined paragraphs 132 to 147 of Karácsony and Others (cited above) as well as in Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24) and Jerusalem v. Austria (no. 26958/95, §§ 36 and 40, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 35493/13

  This is borne out not only by the words "conditions", "restrictions", "preventing" and "prevention" which appear in that provision, but also by the Court's considerations in the cases of The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (26 April 1979, Series A no. 30) and markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany (20 November 1989, Series A no. 165).

• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 43572/18

  GRZEDA v. POLAND

  Certains détenteurs de la puissance publique peuvent à présent cumuler, à l'égard des mêmes actes ou situations, les avantages de la puissance publique et ceux des droits individuels, en agissant à la fois en tant que détenteurs de la puissance publique et en tant que détenteurs de droits (voir en particulier mes opinions séparées jointes aux arrêts Baka c. Hongrie [GC], no 20261/12, 23 juin 2016, Szanyi c. Hongrie, no 35493/13, 8 novembre 2016, Selahattin Demirtas c. Turquie (no 2), no 14305/17, 20 novembre 2018, et Broda et Bojara, précité).
• EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 26691/18

  BRODA ET BOJARA c. POLOGNE

  Selon la conception traditionnelle des droits de l'homme, un « droit de l'homme'qui protégerait le détenteur du pouvoir public dans l'exercice même de ce pouvoir serait une absurdité (comparer avec les opinions séparées que j'ai jointes aux arrêts Baka c. Hongrie [GC], précité, Szanyi c. Hongrie, no 35493/13, 8 novembre 2016, et Selahattin Demirta?Ÿ c. Turquie (No 2) [GC], no 14305/17, point 3, 22 décembre 2020).
• EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 39650/18

  ZUREK v. POLAND

  I have explained my position concerning the correct interpretation of Article 10 in the separate opinions appended to the cases of Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, 23 June 2016, and Szanyi v. Hungary, no. 35493/13, 8 November 2016.
• EGMR, 13.06.2023 - 23445/18

  BAYDEMIR c. TÜRKIYE

  La Cour considère qu'une telle sanction s'analyse en une ingérence dans le droit de l'intéressé à la liberté d'expression (Karácsony et autres, précité, § 120 et Szanyi c. Hongrie, no 35493/13, § 26, 8 novembre 2016).
• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 50012/17

  IKOTITY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  It is further of relevance that the permission refused did not concern content but merely the manner of expression, a matter in respect of which the Court's scrutiny is limited (see paragraph 39 below, and Karácsony and Others, cited above, § 151, and Szanyi v. Hungary, no. 35493/13, § 33, 8 November 2016).