Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WOJCZUK v. POLAND

  No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  WOJCZUK v. POLAND

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

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (21)

• EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1758/02

  KAZAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 52969/13

  In such cases the Court has considered that "the requirements of such protection have to be weighed not in relation to the interests of the freedom of the press or of open discussion of matters of public concern but rather against the applicant's right to report irregularities in the conduct of State officials to a body competent to deal with such complaints" (see, mutatis mutandis, Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 23, 5 October 2006; Kazakov v. Russia, no. 1758/02, § 28, 18 December 2008; Siryk v. Ukraine, no. 6428/07, § 42, 31 March 2011; and Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.

  Finally, with regard to the proportionality of the restriction on the applicant's freedom of expression, the Court's case-law attaches considerable importance to the audience targeted by the impugned statements (see, for example, Grigoriades v. Greece, 25 November 1997, § 47, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII; Kazakov v. Russia, no. 1758/02, § 29, 18 December 2008; and Sofranschi v. Moldova, no. 34690/05, § 33, 21 December 2010).

• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 27447/07

  KHARLAMOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 52969/13

  On the other hand, within the context of Article 10 the Court has considered that the protection of a university's authority was a mere institutional interest, which did not necessarily have the same strength as "the protection of the reputation or rights of others" within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (see Kharlamov v. Russia, no. 27447/07, § 29, 8 October 2015).

  The present case differs from the Court's relevant case-law about universities, where the issues of concern concerned exclusively academic professional standards and were raised in public (see Kharlamov v. Russia, no. 27447/07, § 29, 8 October 2015; Sorguç v. Turkey, no. 17089/03, § 35, 23 June 2009; and Kula v. Turkey, no. 20233/06, § 38, 19 June 2018).

• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 17089/03

  SORGUÇ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 52969/13

  The present case differs from the Court's relevant case-law about universities, where the issues of concern concerned exclusively academic professional standards and were raised in public (see Kharlamov v. Russia, no. 27447/07, § 29, 8 October 2015; Sorguç v. Turkey, no. 17089/03, § 35, 23 June 2009; and Kula v. Turkey, no. 20233/06, § 38, 19 June 2018).

 
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 39294/09

  PERUZZI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 52969/13

  At the same time the Court notes that even a letter distributed within a small community, such as a public institution, can inevitably harm the reputation and professional image of the person concerned (see Peruzzi v. Italy, no. 39294/09, § 63, 30 June 2015).
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 62279/16

  DYBEK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 52969/13

  It appears therefore that the impugned utterances are a mix of assertions of facts and value judgments (compare Kaperzynski v. Poland, no. 43206/07, § 64, 3 April 2012; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 66, ECHR 1999-III; Gasior v. Poland, no. 34472/07, § 42, 21 February 2012; Dybek v. Poland (dec.) no. 62279/16, § 27, 25 September 2018; and Zybertowicz v. Poland, no. 59138/10, § 46, 17 January 2017).
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 20233/06

  KULA c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 52969/13

  The present case differs from the Court's relevant case-law about universities, where the issues of concern concerned exclusively academic professional standards and were raised in public (see Kharlamov v. Russia, no. 27447/07, § 29, 8 October 2015; Sorguç v. Turkey, no. 17089/03, § 35, 23 June 2009; and Kula v. Turkey, no. 20233/06, § 38, 19 June 2018).
• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 52969/13

  First, the aim of "ensuring the proper functioning of public institutions" (see paragraph 77 of the judgment) is not, as such, one of the legitimate aims exhaustively listed in Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (see Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], nos. 43370/04 and 2 others, § 140, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 34690/05

  SOFRANSCHI v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 52969/13

  Finally, with regard to the proportionality of the restriction on the applicant's freedom of expression, the Court's case-law attaches considerable importance to the audience targeted by the impugned statements (see, for example, Grigoriades v. Greece, 25 November 1997, § 47, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII; Kazakov v. Russia, no. 1758/02, § 29, 18 December 2008; and Sofranschi v. Moldova, no. 34690/05, § 33, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 10941/03

  BEZYMYANNYY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 52969/13

  In our view, citizens should be able to notify, at least privately, competent State officials about the conduct of civil servants which to them appears irregular or unlawful, because this is one of the precepts of the rule of law (see Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 26, 5 October 2006; Bezymyannyy v. Russia, no. 10941/03, §§ 40-41, 8 April 2010; and Le?.ník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, § 60, ECHR 2003-IV)).
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 52969/13

  It may therefore prove necessary to protect them from offensive and abusive verbal attacks in the course of their duties (see Peruzzi, cited above, § 52; see also Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999-I, and Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 34472/07

  GASIOR v. POLAND
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE
• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 57675/10

  BESTRY v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14

  Udo Pastörs: Holocaust-Leugnung ist in Europa kein Menschenrecht
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 25239/13

  Holocaust-Leugnung: Dieudonné gescheitert
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 19997/02

  BOLDEA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 19.06.2006 - 23130/04

  Menschenrechtskonvention : Unzulässigkeit der Beschwerde wegen Missbrauchs des …
• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 9257/11

  PYTEL v. POLAND

• EGMR, 14.02.2023 - 21884/18

  "Lux-Leaks": Informant Halet zu Unrecht bestraft

  Par ailleurs, la Cour a jugé que ne relevaient pas du champ du lancement d'alerte les révélations faites par un fonctionnaire qui n'avait pas un accès privilégié ou exclusif à des informations, qui n'apparaissait pas tenu par une obligation de secret ou de discrétion à l'égard de son service, et qui ne semblait pas avoir subi de répercussions sur son lieu de travail du fait des révélations en question (Wojczuk c. Pologne, no 52969/13, §§ 85-88, 9 décembre 2021).
• EGMR, 26.03.2024 - 37712/13

  POGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA

  At the same time, where an utterance amounts to a value judgment, the proportionality of the interference may depend on whether or not there exists a sufficient factual basis for the impugned statement, since even a value judgment may be excessive if it has no factual basis to support it (see Wojczuk v. Poland, no. 52969/13, § 74, 9 December 2021, and Azadliq and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 20755/08, § 35, 30 June 2022).
• EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 33776/20

  PAJTIC v. SERBIA

  As such, A.M. was not bound by the Article 10 "duties and responsibilities" - for example, the obligation to provide accurate and reliable information or to verify factual statements if such statements were being made - to the same extent as would have been required by the ethics of journalism (see Wojczuk v. Poland, no. 52969/13, § 102, 9 December 2021).