Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,11602) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
STOMAKHIN v. RUSSIA
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just ...
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
STOMAKHIN v. RUSSIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just ...
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (4) Neu Zitiert selbst (22)
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24919/94
GERGER v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07
On the contrary, it is clear that the above-mentioned factors in the present case significantly reduced the potential impact of the impugned statements on the rights of others, national security, public safety or public order (cf. Okçuoglu v. Turkey [GC], no. 24246/94, § 48, 8 July 1999; Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 50, 8 July 1999; and Karatas, cited above, § 52).However, this Court has held that even separatist speech containing identical words, namely "struggle" and "liberation", was protected insofar it "did not constitute an incitement to violence, armed resistance or an uprising" (see, for example, Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 50, 8 July 1999; Erdal Tas v. Turkey, no. 77650/01, § 38, 19 December 2006).
- EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74
ARTICO c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07
The reality of a representative's fees is established if the applicant has paid them or is liable to pay them (see Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Germany (Article 50), 10 March 1980, § 15, Series A no. 36; Artico v. Italy (13 May 1980, § 40, Series A no. 37); Airey v. Ireland (Article 50), 6 February 1981, § 13, Series A no 41; Zdanoka v. Latvia, no. 58278/00, § 122, 17 June 2004; and Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], cited above, § 372). - EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98
MAESTRI c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07
This Court has consistently held that "the expression "in accordance with the law" [in Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention] not only requires that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects" (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; see also Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I).
- EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 15615/07
FERET c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07
Moreover, it cannot be said that the incriminated statements were disseminated in a form that was impossible to ignore (see Perinçek, cited above, § 253, and, by contrast, Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, §§ 56-57, 9 February 2012), or in any other way that enhanced the message they were conveying (see, by contrast, Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, § 76, 16 July 2009). - EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24246/94
OKÇUOGLU c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07
On the contrary, it is clear that the above-mentioned factors in the present case significantly reduced the potential impact of the impugned statements on the rights of others, national security, public safety or public order (cf. Okçuoglu v. Turkey [GC], no. 24246/94, § 48, 8 July 1999; Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 50, 8 July 1999; and Karatas, cited above, § 52). - EGMR, 09.02.2012 - 1813/07
Verurteilung wegen homophober Hate-Speech keine Verletzung der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07
Moreover, it cannot be said that the incriminated statements were disseminated in a form that was impossible to ignore (see Perinçek, cited above, § 253, and, by contrast, Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, §§ 56-57, 9 February 2012), or in any other way that enhanced the message they were conveying (see, by contrast, Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, § 76, 16 July 2009). - EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29221/95
STANKOV AND THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07
In Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, the Court found that statements that posed "no real foreseeable risk of violent action or of incitement to violence or any other form of rejection of democratic principles" did not justify banning a political association's meetings (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-IX).[13] Because the impact of the statements was so negligible, the Court in Stankov did not perform a proportionality analysis. - EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 25390/94
REKVÉNYI c. HONGRIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07
This is also true for "laws" restricting Article 10, which should allow a "citizen... to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail" (see Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-III). - EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29225/95
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07
In Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, the Court found that statements that posed "no real foreseeable risk of violent action or of incitement to violence or any other form of rejection of democratic principles" did not justify banning a political association's meetings (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-IX).[13] Because the impact of the statements was so negligible, the Court in Stankov did not perform a proportionality analysis. - EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25501/07
NOVIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07
25501/07 and 4 others, § 91, 26 April 2016). - EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57942/00
KHASHIYEV AND AKAYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94
CEYLAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03
ESMUKHAMBETOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 35071/97
GUNDUZ v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 36109/03
LEROY c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 37096/97
KARADEMIRCI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06
PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 59334/00
CHITAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 49085/07
GÖRMÜS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 60272/00
ESTAMIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57945/00
- EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 22479/93
ÖZTÜRK v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 13918/06
SAVENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Many of these cases have concerned inter-ethnic disputes between the Russian majority population and minorities such as the Chechen ethnic group: see, for instance, Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, 9 May 2018, and Finogenov and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 69575/10
RASHKIN v. RUSSIA
The Court has developed an enormous amount of case-law about defamation, but this has been ignored by the present judgment (see Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, 9 May 2018; Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, ECHR 2015[6]; Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06 and 3 others, ECHR 2011; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, ECHR 2007-IV; Soares v. Portugal, no. 79972/12, 21 June 2016; and Almeida Leitão Bento Fernandes v. Portugal, no. 25790/11, 12 March 2015). - EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 5869/17
ERKIZIA ALMANDOZ c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 3642/10
MUKHIN v. RUSSIA
In this connection the Court refers to the principles established in cases concerning political ideas which challenge the existing order and the current principles and structures of a given State, with or without calls to violence (see Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 47, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III; Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 97, ECHR 2001-IX; The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 59491/00, § 79, 19 January 2006; Egitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikasi v. Turkey, no. 20641/05, §§ 70 and 74-75, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 96, 3 October 2017; and Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, §§ 85, 86 and 92, 9 May 2018).