Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOMMERSANT MOLDOVY v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 10 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 41827/02

  By reason of the "duties and responsibilities" inherent in the exercise of the freedom of expression, the safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see the Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 March 1996, Reports 1996-II, § 39, and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 41827/02

  The most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court is called for when the measures taken or sanctions imposed by the national authority are capable of discouraging the participation of the press in debates over matters of legitimate public concern (see, for example, Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, § 44, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 64, ECHR 1999-III, Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, § 68).
• EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 60115/00

  Meinungsfreiheit von Rechtsanwälten bei der öffentlichen Kritik von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 41827/02

  The Court recalls that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Amihalachioaie v. Moldova, no. 60115/00, § 47, ECHR 2004-III).

 
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 41827/02

  The applicant newspaper published a series of articles in June-September 2001, criticising the authorities of Moldova for their actions in respect of the break-away region of Moldova ("Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria" or "MRT", see Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-...) and reproducing harsh criticism of the Moldovan Government by certain MRT and Russian leaders.
• EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 50997/99

  HAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 41827/02

  These "duties and responsibilities" are liable to assume significance when, as in the present case, there is a question of endangering the national security and the territorial integrity of a State (Han v. Turkey, no. 50997/99, §§ 30 et seq., 13 September 2005).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 41827/02

  Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (see, for instance, the Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, § 59; Busuioc v. Moldova, no. 61513/00, § 56, 21 December 2004).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 41827/02

  The test of necessity in a democratic society requires the Court to determine whether the "interference" complained of corresponded to a "pressing social need", whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify it are relevant and sufficient (see Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, § 62).
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 41827/02

  The most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court is called for when the measures taken or sanctions imposed by the national authority are capable of discouraging the participation of the press in debates over matters of legitimate public concern (see, for example, Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, § 44, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 64, ECHR 1999-III, Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, § 68).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 41827/02

  In particular, while harsh criticism had been a feature of the relevant articles, those articles had referred to political matters concerning the external and internal politics of Moldova, matters which had to be given special protection under Article 10. Besides, it was not for the Government or the courts "to substitute their own views for those of the press as to what technique of reporting should be adopted by journalists" (Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, § 31).

• EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 24791/14

  GHIMPU AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  The Court considers that the balancing between the two competing rights which the domestic courts carried out in a rather general manner did not remedy the absence of any analysis in respect of specific statements in the film, notably concerning the most serious accusations of crimes allegedly committed by the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis, Kommersant Moldovy v. Moldova, no. 41827/02, §§ 36-38, 9 January 2007, where a violation of Article 10 was found on account of the failure of the domestic courts to specify which elements of the applicant's articles were problematic).
• EGMR - 73328/17 (anhängig)

  VELITOV v. RUSSIA

  Did the applicant's conviction amount to an interference with his right to freedom of religion or expression under Articles 9 § 1 or 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference justified in terms of Articles 9 § 2 and 10 § 2? Did the domestic courts adduce "relevant" and "sufficient" reasons for the interference and base their conclusions on an acceptable assessment of the facts and the applicable standards under Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, did they specify which parts of the sermon were problematic (see Kommersant Moldovy v. Moldova, no. 41827/02, § 36, 9 January 2007)? Did they draw their own conclusions from the expert reports (see point 23 of the Supreme Court's resolution no. 11 of 28 June 2011)? Did the interference pursue a legitimate aim? Did the interference correspond to a "pressing social need"? Was the sanction imposed proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued?.