Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 46443/09 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BJÖRK EIÐSDÓTTIR v. ICELAND
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage) (englisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BJÖRK EIÐSDÓTTIR v. ICELAND - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - award
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 46443/09
- EGMR, 08.03.2016 - 46443/09
- EGMR - 46443/09 (anhängig)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (26)
- EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 26132/95
BERGENS TIDENDE ET AUTRES c. NORVEGE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 46443/09
The most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court is called for when, as in the present case, the measures taken or sanctions imposed by the national authority are capable of discouraging the participation of the press in debates over matters of legitimate public concern (see Jersild, cited above, pp. 25-26, § 35; and Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no. 26132/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-IV, Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom, cited above, § 88; compare MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, §§ 150 and 155, 18 January 2011; Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos.It is further to be observed that in Vikan's issue no. 34, the applicant's interview with Mrs Z was presented with certain counter-balancing elements (see Jersild, cited above, § 34, and Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no. 26132/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-IV).
- EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 38432/97
THOMA v. LUXEMBOURG
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 46443/09
The Court discerns no reason for doing so either, finding it sufficiently clear that the sub-heading merely reproduced Mrs Z's account and opinions (see Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 64, ECHR 2001-III; compare Verdens Gang and Aase v. Norway (dec.), no. 45710/99, ECHR 2001-X).Though they may have been capable of causing injury to Mr Y's reputation, the Court sees no cause for criticising the applicant for not having distanced herself from the contents of Mrs Z's statements (Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 64, ECHR 2001-III; Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria, no. 13071/03, § 53, 2 November 2006).
- EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89
JERSILD v. DENMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 46443/09
As set forth in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, among other authorities, Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 23-24, § 31; Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 30, ECHR 1999-I; and Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos.In this connection, the Court reiterates that news reporting based on interviews, whether edited or not, constitutes one of the most important means whereby the press is able to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (see Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216; and Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 35, Series A no. 298).
- EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 64915/01
CHAUVY AND OTHERS v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 46443/09
70 In particular, the Court must determine whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify the interference were "relevant and sufficient" and whether the measure taken was "proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued" (see Chauvy and Others v. France, no. 64915/01, § 70, ECHR 2004-VI).In its recent Grand Chamber judgment in Axel Springer AG v. Germany ([GC], no. 39954/08, § 83, 7 February 2012), the Court reiterated that the right to protection of reputation is a right which is protected by Article 8 of the Convention as part of the right to respect for private life (see Chauvy and Others v. France, no. 64915/01, § 70, ECHR 2004-VI; CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 91, ECHR 2004-XI; Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, § 35, 15 November 2007; and Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, § 40, 21 September 2010).
- EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93
BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 46443/09
In cases such as the present one the national margin of appreciation is circumscribed by the interest of democratic society in enabling the press to exercise its vital role of "public watchdog" in imparting information of serious public concern (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, §§ 59 and 62, ECHR 1999-III; Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, § 82, 1 March 2007, with further references). - EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01
STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 46443/09
The limits of acceptable criticism must accordingly be wider than in the case of a private individual or an ordinary professional (see, mutatis mutandis, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 94, ECHR 2005-II; Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel v. Moldova, no. 42864/05, § 34, 27 November 2007). - EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 45710/99
VERDENS GANG and AASE v. NORWAY
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 46443/09
The Court discerns no reason for doing so either, finding it sufficiently clear that the sub-heading merely reproduced Mrs Z's account and opinions (see Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 64, ECHR 2001-III; compare Verdens Gang and Aase v. Norway (dec.), no. 45710/99, ECHR 2001-X). - EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93
NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 46443/09
As set forth in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, among other authorities, Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 23-24, § 31; Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 30, ECHR 1999-I; and Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. - EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 25716/94
JANOWSKI v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 46443/09
As set forth in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, among other authorities, Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 23-24, § 31; Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 30, ECHR 1999-I; and Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. - EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 55480/00
SIDABRAS ET DZIAUTAS c. LITUANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 46443/09
55480/00 and 59330/00, § 49, ECHR 2004-VIII). - EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 28743/03
MELNITCHOUK c. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 13071/03
STANDARD VERLAGS GMBH v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 510/04
TØNSBERGS BLAD AS AND HAUKOM v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02
LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 42864/05
TIMPUL INFO-MAGAZIN AND ANGHEL v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 28070/06
A. v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 34147/06
POLANCO TORRES ET MOVILLA POLANCO c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08
Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …
- EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 59330/00
- EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 39954/08
Axel Springer AG in Art. 10 EMRK (Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung) verletzt durch …
- EGMR, 13.11.2019 - 39401/04
MGN LIMITED AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88
OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85
CASTELLS v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98
EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95
FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88
THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND