Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 8819/16 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SAURE v. GERMANY
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
SAURE v. GERMANY
Verfahrensgang
- BVerwG, 27.11.2013 - 6 A 5.13
- EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 8819/16
Papierfundstellen
- afp 2023, 137
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- VG Cottbus, 15.01.2002 - 1 L 783/01
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 8819/16
The right of the press to receive information does not, as a rule, encompass the right of the press to consult the files in person; however, the right of the press to receive information may, exceptionally, consolidate to become a right to consult files, if access to information in a complete and truthful manner can only be achieved that way (see Cottbus Administrative Court, no. 1 L 783/01, order of 15 January 2001; Dresden Administrative Court, no. 5 L 42.09, order of 7 May 2009, at para. 74 - juris). - BVerwG, 16.03.2016 - 6 C 65.14
Abgeordneter; Amtsausstattung; Aufwandsentschädigung; Auskunftsanspruch; …
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 8819/16
The Federal Administrative Court subsequently also held that the right of the press to receive information deriving from Article 5 § 1, second sentence, of the Basic Law directly must, in substance, not fall short of the content of the right to receive information under Land press legislation (see Federal Administrative Court, no. 6 C 65/14, judgment of 16 March 2016). - BGH, 17.07.2014 - III ZR 228/13
Entschädigungsprozess wegen überlanger Verfahrensdauer: Prüfung der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 8819/16
The purpose of these requirements, which have a preventive warning function, is to enable the court to expedite the proceedings (see Federal Court of Justice, no. III ZR 228/13, judgment of 17 July 2014, at paras. 15 and 17). - BVerfG, 27.07.2015 - 1 BvR 1452/13
Verfassungsbeschwerde zum Auskunftsanspruch der Presse gegen Bundesbehörden nicht …
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 8819/16
In adjudicating a constitutional complaint against that judgment of the Federal Administrative Court, the Federal Constitutional Court (no. 1 BvR 1452/13, order of 27 July 2015) considered that there were no indications of a violation of the right of freedom of the press as long as the specialised courts granted members of the press a right to receive information in relation to federal authorities which, in substance, did not fall short of the content of the right to receive information under Land press legislation (see also Saure, cited above, §§ 16-17). - BVerwG, 20.02.2013 - 6 A 2.12
Auskunftsanspruch der Presse; Bundesnachrichtendienst; Gesetzgebungskompetenz des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 8819/16
In its leading judgment of 20 February 2013 (no. 6 A 2.12), the Federal Administrative Court found that Land press legislation was not applicable to the Foreign Intelligence Service because, pursuant to the Basic Law, the federal legislature had exclusive competence for matters relating to that Service, including the circumstances in which it had to or may disclose information to the public and the press.
- EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 6091/16
Auskunftsausspruch: Namen von Stasi-Richtern müssen nicht offengelegt werden
56. The interests to be balanced against the applicant's interest in disclosure of the information are not limited to the rights of others (see, for example, Seks v. Croatia, no. 39325/20, § 61, 3 February 2022, and Saure v. Germany, no. 8819/16, § 51, 8 November 2022, both of which involved national security concerns) and include maintaining the authority of the judiciary, as set out in paragraph 2 of Article 10.57.Such right or obligation may also arise in relation to information that is not, and is not intended to be, generally accessible (see Saure [no. 8819/16], §§ 52 et seq., and Seks, §§ 63 et seq., both cited above, in respect of classified information involving national security concerns, even though the refusal of the requested access did not breach Article 10 in the specific circumstances of those cases).
75. Reiterating that applicants are required to substantiate their information requests, if need be in the course of the domestic proceedings, so as to put the domestic authorities in a position to engage in the necessary balancing of competing interests (see Saure [no. 8819/16], §§ 55 and 57, and contrast Centre for Democracy and the Rule of Law, § 119, both cited above), the Court cannot but note that the Berlin-Brandenburg Court of Appeal in its decision of 28 October 2011 on the applicant's request for interim measures found that this request was too vague as it was not possible to determine on which types of proceedings the applicant sought to obtain information (see paragraph 18 above).
Despite being provided with this judicial guidance that he needed to specify which types of proceedings he was referring to, the applicant did not respond to this call, either in his submissions before the Administrative Court in the main proceedings during which he changed the wording of this specific question or in his subsequent submissions before the Berlin-Brandenburg Court of Appeal and the Federal Constitutional Court (see Saure, cited above [no. 8819/16], § 57, and the references cited therein).
There are no indications or submissions from the applicant that he was prevented from making a substantiated submission before the domestic courts (see Saure, cited above [no. 8819/16], § 57).
- OVG Schleswig-Holstein, 13.03.2024 - 6 LB 8/24
Landtag muss Gutachtenliste nicht herausgeben
Ob und inwieweit diese Voraussetzungen gegeben sind, muss in jedem Einzelfall nach dessen besonderen Umständen festgestellt werden (EGMR, Urt. v. 08.11.2016 - 18030/11 - Magyar Helsinki Bizottság, a.a.O. Rn. 156 f., Urt. v. 08.11.2022 - 8819/16 -, Saure/Deutschland, Hudoc Rn. 46).