Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PRYANISHNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87

  OTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.09.2019 - 25047/05

  Film reproduction licensing was a measure of State regulation to prevent the imparting of information and ideas judged incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of others (they referred to Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A).

  [7] As in the Müller and Others v. Switzerland judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, the Wingrove v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 November 1996, Reports 1996, and the Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria judgment of 20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A.

• EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84

  MÜLLER AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.09.2019 - 25047/05

  Hence the obligation on the State not to encroach unduly on their freedom of expression (see Müller and Others v. Switzerland, 24 May 1988, §§ 27 and 33, Series A no. 133, and Kaos GL v. Turkey, no. 4982/07, § 47, 22 November 2016).

  [7] As in the Müller and Others v. Switzerland judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, the Wingrove v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 November 1996, Reports 1996, and the Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria judgment of 20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A.

• BVerfG, 17.01.1978 - 1 BvL 13/76

  Bestimmtheitsgebot

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.09.2019 - 25047/05

  [23] § 184 Abs. 1 Nr. 7 of the Criminal Code was found compatible with the German Basic Law by the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGE v. 17.1.1978 I 405 - 1 BvL 13/76).
• EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 32283/04

  MELTEX LTD AND MOVSESYAN v. ARMENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.09.2019 - 25047/05

  This may lead to interferences whose aims will be legitimate under the third sentence of paragraph 1, even though they may not correspond to any of the aims set out in paragraph 2. However, the compatibility of such interferences must be assessed in the light of the requirements of paragraph 2 (see, mutatis mutandis, Demuth v. Switzerland, no. 38743/97, § 33, ECHR 2002-IX; Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan v. Armenia, no. 32283/04, § 76, 17 June 2008; and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 139, ECHR 2012).

• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 81292/17

  CHOCHOLÁC v. SLOVAKIA

  By reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, State authorities are in principle in a better position than the international judge to give an opinion on the exact content of these requirements, as well as on the "necessity" of a "restriction" or "penalty" intended to meet those requirements (see Müller and Others v. Switzerland, 24 May 1988, § 35, Series A no. 133, and, more recently, Pryanishnikov v. Russia, no. 25047/05, § 53, 10 September 2019).
• EGMR, 21.04.2020 - 35215/06

  SEVCENCO ET TIMOSIN c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Par conséquent, la Cour estime qu'elle devait en être informée afin de lui permettre d'examiner l'affaire à la lumière de tous les faits pertinents qui s'y rapportent (comparer avec Buzinger c. Slovaquie (déc.), no 32133/10, §§ 21-22, 16 juin 2015, Lazarov c. Serbie (déc.), no 42571/06, § 26, 3 mai 2016, Safaryan, précité, § 28, et Gevorgyan et autres, précité, § 37 ; et voir, pour des exemples contraires où il a été considéré que les informations ne concernaient pas le c?“ur de l'affaire, Bestry c. Pologne, no 57675/10, § 44, 3 novembre 2015, Mitrovic c. Serbie, no 52142/12, § 34, 21 mars 2017, Shalyavski et autres c. Bulgarie, no 67608/11, § 45, 15 juin 2017, Petrov et X c. Russie, no 23608/16, § 73, 23 octobre 2018, et Pryanishnikov c. Russie, no 25047/05, § 43, 10 septembre 2019).