Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EERIKAINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 3514/02
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 3514/02

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 50774/99

  SCIACCA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 3514/02

  The fact that she was the subject of criminal proceedings cannot remove from her the protection of Article 8 (see Sciacca v. Italy, no. 50774/99, § 28-29, ECHR 2005-I).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 3514/02

  It is however not for this Court, any more than it is for the national courts, to substitute its own views for those of the press as to what techniques of reporting should be adopted by journalists (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298).
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13704/88

  SCHWABE v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 3514/02

  It is plain that X was not a public figure or a politician but an ordinary person who was the subject of criminal proceedings (see Schwabe v. Austria, 28 August 1992, § 32, Series A no. 242-B).

 
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 3514/02

  The fact that she ran a relatively small cleaning firm and had given an interview eight years previously to a magazine, which had come about in circumstances apparently not discussed during the domestic proceedings or at any length before the Court, does not mean that she had knowingly entered the public arena (see, mutatis mutandis, Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 75, Series A no. 294-B).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 3514/02

  This power of appreciation is not, however, unlimited but goes hand in hand with a European supervision by the Court, whose task it is to give a final ruling on whether a restriction is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 58, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 31457/96

  NEWS VERLAGS GmbH & Co. KG v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 3514/02

  The Government observed that the present application differed from the case of News Verlags GmbH & Co.KG v. Austria (no. 31457/96, ECHR 2000-I), which concerned the publication of a suspect's picture in connection with a report on offences (the sending of letter bombs to politicians etc., severely injuring several victims).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 3514/02

  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), 26 April 1979, § 62, Series A no. 30).
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 53678/00

  Karhuvaara und Iltalehti / Finnland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 3514/02

  The Court therefore concludes that the interference was thus "prescribed by law" (see Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 34, ECHR 2002-II; Selistö v. Finland, no. 56767/00, § 34, 16 November 2004 and Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland, no. 53678/00, § 43, ECHR 2004-X).
• EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 41205/98

  TAMMER v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 3514/02

  In the cases in which the Court has had to balance the protection of private life against freedom of expression, it has stressed the contribution made by photos or articles in the press to a debate of general interest (see Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, §§ 59 et seq., ECHR 2001-I; News Verlags GmbH & Co. KG v. Austria, cited above, §§ 52 et seq.; and Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG v. Austria, no. 34315/96, §§ 33 et seq., 26 February 2002).

• BGH, 31.05.2022 - VI ZR 95/21

  Persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzung: Voraussetzungen einer zulässigen …

  Schließlich ist Gegenstand der Berichterstattung der Beklagten der Inhalt einer öffentlichen (§ 169 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GVG) Hauptverhandlung (vgl. dazu Senat…, Urteil vom 19. März 2013 - VI ZR 93/12, NJW 2013, 1681 Rn. 27 f.;… BVerfGE 119, 309, 321 f. [juris Rn. 35]; EGMR, Urteile vom 2. Juni 2015 - 54145/10, Tz. 72 ff. - Erla Hlynsdóttir v. Iceland; vom 10. Februar 2009 - 3514/02, Tz. 63 ff. - Eerikäinen and others v. Finland).

  Eine solche Verbreitung darf die Presse zur Wahrnehmung berechtigter Interessen zumindest in der Regel für erforderlich halten, ohne eigene Recherchen über den Wahrheitsgehalt der Tatvorwürfe anzustellen und in diesem Rahmen eine Stellungnahme des Angeklagten einzuholen (vgl. EGMR, Urteile vom 2. Juni 2015 - 54145/10, Tz. 73 - Erla Hlynsdóttir v. Iceland; vom 10. Februar 2009 - 3514/02, Tz. 63 ff. - Eerikäinen and others v. Finland).

• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 34702/07

  Standard Verlags GmbH ./. Österreich (Nr. 3)

  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 and on an accurate factual basis and provide reliable and precise information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I, and, as a recent authority, Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, no. 3514/02, § 60, 10 February 2009).
• EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 23605/09

  Zu den Grenzen des Spekulationsjournalismus

  It was thus "prescribed by law" (see Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 34, ECHR 2002-II; Selistö v. Finland, no. 56767/00, § 34, 16 November 2004; Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland, no. 53678/00, § 43, ECHR 2004-X; and Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, no. 3514/02, § 58, 10 February 2009) and it pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others, within the meaning of Article 10 § 2.

 
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 09.06.2011 - C-163/10

  Generalanwalt Niilo Jääskinen erläutert die Bedeutung des Begriffs "in Ausübung …

  29 - EGMR, Urteil Eerikäinen u. a. gegen Finnland vom 10. Februar 2009, Beschwerde Nr. 3514/02, §§ 66 bis 68.
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 3401/07

  Kurier Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei GmbH ./. Österreich

  By reason of the "duties and responsibilities" inherent in the exercise of 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 and on an accurate factual basis and provide reliable and precise information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I, and, as a recent authority, Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, no. 3514/02, § 60, 10 February 2009).
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 3084/07

  Äußerungsfreiheit von Journalisten bei Publikationen zur möglichen Befangenheit …

  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 and on an accurate factual basis and provide reliable and precise information in accordance with journalistic ethics (see Fressoz and Roire v. France (GC), no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I and, as a recent authority, Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, no. 3514/02, § 60, 10 February 2009).
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 27306/07

  KRONE VERLAG GMBH v. AUSTRIA

  By reason of the "duties and responsibilities" inherent in the exercise of 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 and on an accurate factual basis and providing reliable and precise information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I, and, as a recent authority, Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, no. 3514/02, § 60, 10 February 2009).
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 1593/06

  Zur Abwägung zwischen Pressefreiheit und dem Schutzbedürfnis Minderjähriger

  By reason of the "duties and responsibilities" inherent in the exercise of 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 and on an accurate factual basis and providing reliable and precise information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I, and, as a recent authority, Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, no. 3514/02, § 60, 10 February 2009).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 33497/07

  Krone Verlag GmbH & Co KG und Krone Multimedia GmbH & Co KG ./. Österreich

  By reason of the "duties and responsibilities" inherent in the exercise of 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 and on an accurate factual basis and provide reliable and precise information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I, and, as a recent authority, Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, no. 3514/02, § 60, 10 February 2009).
• EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 66456/09

  RISTAMÄKI AND KORVOLA v. FINLAND

  It was thus "prescribed by law" (see Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 34, ECHR 2002-II; Selistö v. Finland, no. 56767/00, § 34, 16 November 2004; Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland, no. 53678/00, § 43, ECHR 2004-X; and Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, no. 3514/02, § 58, 10 February 2009) and it pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the private life of others, within the meaning of Article 10 § 2.
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37751/07

  MARIAPORI v. FINLAND