Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MOCUTA v. ROMANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 14, Art. 14+6 Abs. 1, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 10265/04

  In particular, the Court reiterates that the applicant's right to "respect for his private life" under Article 8 has to be balanced against the public interest in freedom of expression under Article 10, an interest in which journalists play a critical role as public watchdog: they have a duty to report on matters of public interest (see, among many authorities, Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216, and Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 10265/04

  In particular, the Court reiterates that the applicant's right to "respect for his private life" under Article 8 has to be balanced against the public interest in freedom of expression under Article 10, an interest in which journalists play a critical role as public watchdog: they have a duty to report on matters of public interest (see, among many authorities, Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216, and Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 10265/04

  However, even assuming that the applicant felt offended by the insinuations made, journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration or even provocation, which does not seem to have been overstepped in the case under examination (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 56, ECHR 2007-XI).

 
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 10265/04

  It further reiterates that although Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 61, Series A no. 288).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 10265/04

  The Court reiterates that the admissibility and assessment of evidence are primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts, and therefore it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 28070/06

  A. v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 10265/04

  The Court makes reference to the principles it has established in its recent case-law concerning the protection afforded by the right to a good reputation (see Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, §§ 17-26, 28 April 2009; Petrina v. Romania, no. 78060/01, §§ 27-29 and 34-36, 14 October 2008; and A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, §§ 63-65, 9 April 2009).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 18064/91

  HIRO BALANI v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 10265/04

  Courts must reply to parties" essential arguments, but the extent to which that duty applies may vary in accordance with the nature of the decision and must therefore be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case (see, among other authorities, Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 27, Series A no. 303-B).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96

  IGNACCOLO-ZENIDE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 10265/04

  Moreover, the Court is not required to examine in the abstract the domestic legal order: its sole task is to consider whether in the case under examination the legal system offered adequate and effective protection of the applicant's rights (see, mutatis mutandis, Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 108, ECHR 2000-I, and Ruianu v. Romania, no. 34647/97, § 66, 17 June 2003).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 25716/94

  JANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 10265/04

  In those capacities, the applicant was a public figure, and was thus exposed to a wider limit of "acceptable criticism" of his activities (see Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999-I, and Mamère v. France, no. 12697/03, § 27, ECHR 2006-XIII).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

  KARAKO v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 10265/04

  The Court makes reference to the principles it has established in its recent case-law concerning the protection afforded by the right to a good reputation (see Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, §§ 17-26, 28 April 2009; Petrina v. Romania, no. 78060/01, §§ 27-29 and 34-36, 14 October 2008; and A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, §§ 63-65, 9 April 2009).
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 78060/01

  PETRINA c. ROUMANIE