Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BENITEZ MORIANA AND IÑIGO FERNANDEZ v. SPAIN

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BENITEZ MORIANA c. ESPAGNE et une autre affaire

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

Papierfundstellen

• NVwZ 2021, 1763

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 36537/15

  Moreover, the Court has accepted that when an NGO draws attention to matters of public interest, it is exercising a public watchdog role of similar importance to that of the press (see Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 103, ECHR 2013 (extracts)) and may be characterised as a social "watchdog" warranting similar protection under the Convention as that afforded to the press (ibid., Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 166, 8 November 2016 and Medzlis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others, cited above, § 86).

  We would point out that in Morice (cited above, § 124), referring to Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 48876/08, § 100, ECHR 2013 (extracts)), the Court stated as follows:.

• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 39294/09

  PERUZZI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 36537/15

  The Court is therefore empowered to give the final ruling on whether a "restriction" is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 (see Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, § 196 (iii), ECHR 2015 (extracts), and Peruzzi v. Italy, no. 39294/09, § 45, 30 June 2015).

  We also share the view of the domestic courts that the applicants" allegations of misconduct on the part of M.M. were based only on the fact that the judge had decided the case in favour of the company WBB, whose interests were not shared by the environmental platform which the applicants represented (see, mutatis mutandis, Peruzzi, v. Italy, no. 39294/09, § 60, 30 June 2015, and contrast Morice, §§ 156-61).

• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 36537/15

  "Unlike... other authorities..., judges - who... express themselves only through their decisions - for obvious reasons of reserve, prudence and containment, lack the same personal capacity to reply which [other authorities] have in order to contest criticism of their function that they deem unfair, false or offensive to their professional honour [the court cited, among other authorities, Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 34, Series A no. 313, and, inter alia, Falter Zeitschriften GmbH v. Austria (no. 2), no. 3084/07, § 39, 18 September 2012].

 
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 36537/15

  Unfounded attacks can be an obstacle to public servants performing their duty (see Janowski v. Poland, no. 25716/94, § 33, 21 January 1999, and Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-II), and this protection also applies specifically to the judiciary.
• EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 68317/13

  MILJEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 36537/15

  Moreover, and in so far as an interference with freedom of expression in the context of the alleged defamation of a judge is concerned, the Court refers to Miljevic v. Croatia (no. 68317/13, § 53, 25 June 2020) and Morice v. France [GC] (no. 29369/10, §§ 124 et seq., ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 30210/06

  RICCI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 36537/15

  An interference will infringe the Convention if it does not meet the requirements of paragraph 2 of Article 10. It should therefore be determined whether it was "prescribed by law", whether it pursued one or more of the legitimate aims set out in that paragraph, and whether it was "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve the relevant aim or aims (see Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 67, ECHR 2004-XI, and Ricci v. Italy, no. 30210/06, § 43, 8 October 2013).
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

  MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 36537/15

  Moreover, the Court has accepted that when an NGO draws attention to matters of public interest, it is exercising a public watchdog role of similar importance to that of the press (see Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 103, ECHR 2013 (extracts)) and may be characterised as a social "watchdog" warranting similar protection under the Convention as that afforded to the press (ibid., Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 166, 8 November 2016 and Medzlis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others, cited above, § 86).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 36537/15

  However, where a statement amounts to a value judgment, the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether a sufficient "factual basis" for the impugned statement exists: if it does not, that value judgment may prove excessive (ibid., § 47; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 55, ECHR 2007-IV; and Morice [GC], cited above, § 126).

• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 20725/20

  ALLÉE c. FRANCE

  Si une telle sanction ne saurait être qualifiée de particulièrement sévère, il n'en reste pas moins que la requérante, à laquelle en outre la Cour de cassation a enjoint de payer 2 500 EUR au titre des frais de la procédure en cassation, s'est vu infliger une condamnation pénale (mutatus mutandis, Uzan c. Turquie, no 30569/09, § 47, 20 mars 2018, et Benitez Moriana et Iñigo Fernandez c. Espagne, nos 36537/15 et 36539/15, § 49, 9 mars 2021).
• EGMR, 18.11.2021 - 27801/12

  MARINONI c. ITALIE

  Si la méthodologie développée par la Cour dans ce domaine semble aujourd'hui obsolète et devrait être remplacée par une analyse plus approfondie du statut sémantique des énoncés en cause (voir mon opinion concordante jointe à l'arrêt Dimitriou c. Grèce, no 62639/12, 11 mars 2021 ; comparer aussi le par. 9 de l'opinion dissidente communes des Juges Elósegui and Serghides jointe à l'arrêt, Benitez Moriana et Iñigo Fernandez c. Espagne, nos 36537/15 et 36539/15, 9 mars 2021), la question si un énoncé est une proposition au sens de la logique (une allégation de fait) ou un énoncé évaluatif (« jugement de valeur ") ou les deux à la fois, garde toute sa pertinence et ne saurait être écartée.