Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KWIECIEN v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.03.2005 - 51744/99
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 51744/99

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 51744/99

  The Court further recalls that there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on debate on questions of public interest (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 51744/99

  As set forth in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, among many other authorities, Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 30, ECHR 1999-I; and Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 51744/99

  Where a statement amounts to a value judgement, the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether there exists a sufficient factual basis for the impugned statement, since even a value judgement without any factual basis to support it may be excessive (see De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, judgment of 24 February 1997, Reports 1997-I, p. 236, § 47; and Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 76, ECHR 2001-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 55120/00

  INDEPENDENT NEWS AND MEDIA AND INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS IRELAND LIMITED v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 51744/99

  In these circumstances, the Court finds that the pecuniary sanctions imposed on the applicant were excessive (see Independent News and Media and Independent Newspapers Ireland Limited v. Ireland, no. 55120/00, § 132, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 33352/02

  KELLER v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 51744/99

  As regards the reasons cited by the domestic courts to justify the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression, the Court first notes that the Polish courts, despite the applicant's reliance on Article 10 of the Convention in the appellate proceedings, failed to recognise that the present case involved a conflict between the right to freedom of expression and the protection of the reputation and the rights of others and so did not carry out the relevant balancing exercise (see, mutatis mutandis, Keller v. Hungary (dec.), no. 33352/02, 4 April 2006).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 51744/99

  Free elections and freedom of expression, particularly freedom of political debate, together form the bedrock of any democratic system (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, p. 22, § 47).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 25716/94

  JANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 51744/99

  As set forth in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, among many other authorities, Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 30, ECHR 1999-I; and Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 51744/99

  Under the Convention, an award of damages for defamation, or similar remedies such as those granted in the present case, must bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the injury to reputation suffered (Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, § 49).

• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 64184/11

  PARASKEVOPOULOS v. GREECE

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that the manner in which a local official carries out his or her official duties and issues touching on his or her personal integrity is a matter of general interest to the community (see, among other authorities, Sokolowski v. Poland, no. 75955/01, § 45, 29 March 2005, and Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 51, 9 January 2007) and that there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or debate on matters of public interest (see, among other authorities, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).

  Local politicians or office holders are also legitimate targets of criticism for their acts or omissions in their public functions, although they may not otherwise be well-known to the public, even at the local level (see, for example, Ziembinski v. Poland (no. 2), no. 1799/07, 5 July 2016; Jucha and Zak v. Poland, no. 19127/06, § 45, 23 October 2012; and Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 52, 9 January 2007).

• EGMR, 25.07.2019 - 47542/07

  BRZEZINSKI c. POLOGNE

  Cependant, elle rappelle avoir dit que l'examen des litiges liés aux élections, aussi souhaitable qu'il soit, ne devrait pas entraîner la diminution indue des garanties procédurales offertes aux parties à la procédure et en particulier aux défendeurs (Kwiecie?„ c. Pologne, no 51744/99, § 55, 9 janvier 2007).

  La Cour rappelle en même temps qu'il est particulièrement important, en cette période préélectorale, de permettre aux opinions et aux informations de tous ordres de circuler librement (Kwiecie?„ c. Pologne, no 51744/99, § 48, 9 avril 2007).

• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 42211/07

  RIOLO c. ITALIE

  Dans ces conditions, la Cour estime que, tout en contenant une certaine dose de provocation, l'article du requérant ne saurait s'analyser en une attaque personnelle gratuite à l'encontre de Me Musotto (voir, mutatis mutandis, Kwiecien c. Pologne, no 51744/99, § 54, 9 janvier 2007, et Ormanni c. Italie, no 30278/04, § 73, 17 juillet 2007), et que les expressions utilisées par l'intéressé présentaient un lien suffisamment étroit avec les faits de l'espèce (voir, mutatis mutandis, Feldek c. Slovaquie, no 29032/95, § 86, CEDH 2001-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 28.07.2020 - 53028/14

  MONICA MACOVEI v. ROMANIA

  In this connection, the Court has already held that the manner in which a locally elected official carries out his or her official duties and issues touching on his or her personal integrity are matters of general interest to the community (see, mutatis mutandis, Soko?‚owski v. Poland, no. 75955/01, § 45, 29 March 2005; Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 51, 9 January 2007; and Paraskevopoulos, cited above, § 36) and that there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or debate on matters of public interest (see, among other authorities, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV; and Instytut Ekonomichnykh Reform, TOV v. Ukraine, no. 61561/08, § 44, 2 June 2016).
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 34447/05

  MARIAN MACIEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  However, the balancing exercise carried out by the domestic courts did not take sufficiently into account all standards established in the Court's case-law under Article 10 of the Convention (compare and contrast, Keller v. Hungary (dec.), no. 33352/02, 4 April 2006; Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 52, 9 January 2007).
• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 23806/03

  DLUGOLECKI v. POLAND

  This principle applies equally to national and local elections (see Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 48, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 25333/06

  EUROPAPRESS HOLDING D.O.O. v. CROATIA

  (e) The nature and severity of the sanction imposed are also factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of the interference under Article 10 of the Convention (see, for example, Keller v. Hungary (dec.), no. 33352/02, 4 April 2006; and Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 56, ECHR 2007-I).
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 69575/10

  RASHKIN v. RUSSIA

  However, when making the pecuniary award against the applicant, the domestic courts failed to carry out a serious assessment of its proportionality in relation to the applicant's financial situation and resources (compare Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 56, 9 January 2007).
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8918/05

  GREBNEVA AND ALISIMCHIK v. RUSSIA

  It must therefore be regarded as a direct result of the violation found (compare and contrast Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, §§ 64-66, 9 January 2007, and, more recently, Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 37406/03

  DYUNDIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court therefore considers 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 reputation (see, for similar reasoning, Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 52, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 35839/13

  SAVITSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 42182/11

  TOLMACHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 16901/03

  SIREDZHUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 21307/07

  PIONTEK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 73219/01

  FILATENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 37482/10

  KOMMERSANT AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 38005/03

  GAZDA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 23.08.2011 - 49910/06

  KOVAC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1758/02

  KAZAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23665/09

  SZCZERBIAK v. POLAND