Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 33628/15   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2016,12208
EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 33628/15 (https://dejure.org/2016,12208)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.05.2016 - 33628/15 (https://dejure.org/2016,12208)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. Mai 2016 - 33628/15 (https://dejure.org/2016,12208)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,12208) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

  • EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 56328/10

    ERDTMANN v. GERMANY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 33628/15
    The Court finds it clear that the applicants" conviction interfered with their rights under Article 10 of the Convention since they were convicted of acts that were part of an investigation for an article to be published, even though they were not convicted of the actual publishing (see, mutatis mutandis, Pentikäinen v. Finland [GC], no. 11882/10, § 83, ECHR 2015; Dammann v. Switzerland, no. 77551/01, § 52, 25 April 2006; and Erdtmann v. Germany (dec.), no. 56328/10, § 16, 5 January 2016).
  • EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

    Schießbefehl

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 33628/15
    Moreover, it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 49, ECHR 2001-II).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 931/13

    SATAKUNNAN MARKKINAPÖRSSI OY AND SATAMEDIA OY v. FINLAND

    "Responsible journalism" has recently been used as one of the factors to grant a wider margin of appreciation, resulting in undermining the freedom of the press (see Rusu v. Romania, no. 25721/04, § 24, 8 March 2016, where Pentikäinen was reinterpreted and extensively applied; Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, §§ 49-54, ECHR 2016; Salihu and Others v. Sweden (dec.), no. 33628/15, §§ 53-56, 10 May 2016; Kunitsyna v. Russia, no. 9406/05, § 45, 13 December 2016; and Travaglio v. Italy (dec.), no. 64746/14, § 36, 24 January 2017).
  • EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 49132/11

    DOROTA KANIA c. POLOGNE

    Le journalisme responsable, malgré la signification apparente apparemment innocente de ce terme, impose un devoir qui (comme en l'espèce et comme l'ont démontré, ces derniers mois, les arrêts Bédat c. Suisse ([GC], no 56925/08, CEDH 2016), Rusu c. Roumanie (no 25721/04, 8 mars 2016), Erdtmann c. Allemagne (déc.), no 56328/10, 5 janvier 2016, et Salihu et autres c. Suède ((déc.), no 33628/15, 10 mai 2016), sapent la liberté journalistique nécessaire à une démocratie solide.
  • EGMR, 12.07.2022 - 38825/16

    KOTLYAR v. RUSSIA

    The present case must further be distinguished from cases in which the applicants were sanctioned for criminally reprehensible acts that they had committed in the preparation of a publication or broadcast (see Erdtmann v. Germany (dec.), no. 56328/10, § 16, 5 January 2016, in which the applicant carried a knife onto an airplane in order to prepare a television documentary about airport security flaws, and Salihu and Others v. Sweden (dec.), no. 33628/15, § 49, 10 May 2016, in which the applicants illegally purchased a firearm to investigate how easy it was to obtain one).
  • EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 41192/11

    AMAGHLOBELI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

    The Court considers that, even if the administrative sanction was not necessarily aimed at the applicants as journalists, it still interfered with their right to freedom of expression because they were held responsible for acts that formed part of an investigation for an article to be published (compare Pentikäinen v. Finland [GC], no. 11882/10, § 83, ECHR 2015; Salihu and Others v. Sweden (dec.), no. 33628/15, § 49, 10 May 2016; and Erdtmann v. Germany (dec.), no. 56328/10, § 16, 5 January 2016).
  • EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 11915/15

    GESINA-TORRES v. POLAND

    In a case concerning the illegal possession of a firearm which occurred in investigations planned and carried out by the applicants for an article which was subsequently written and published with a view to drawing the attention of the public opinion to the issue of accessibility of illegal arms in the area concerned (Salihu and Others v. Sweden (dec.), no. 33628/15, 10 May 2016) the factors to be taken into consideration included whether the issue was of public interest; whether the applicant knew that their actions infringed ordinary criminal law, whether the issue concerned could be illustrated in other ways.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht