Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 33333/04

  It comprises, among other things, the right to impart, in good faith, information on matters of public interest, even where this involves damaging statements about private individuals (see, mutatis mutandis, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 33333/04

  The Court recalls in this connection that it has been its constant approach to require very strong reasons for justifying restrictions on political speech, since broad restrictions imposed in individual cases would undoubtedly affect respect for the freedom of expression in general in the State concerned (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 33333/04

  In cases concerning the press, it is circumscribed by the interest of a democratic society in ensuring and maintaining a free press (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 49, ECHR 1999-VI).

 
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 33333/04

  In examining the particular circumstances of the case, the Court will take the following elements into account: the position of the applicant, the position of the plaintiff in the defamation claim, the subject matter of the publication and the qualification of the contested statement by the domestic courts (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 35, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 33333/04

  The Court recalls in this connection that it has been its constant approach to require very strong reasons for justifying restrictions on political speech, since broad restrictions imposed in individual cases would undoubtedly affect respect for the freedom of expression in general in the State concerned (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 33333/04

  The test of necessity requires the Court to determine whether the interference 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 were relevant and sufficient (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 33333/04

  Subject to paragraph 2, it is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" which are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those which offend, shock or disturb (see, among many other authorities, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, § 42, and Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323, § 52).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 33333/04

  The Court emphasised that the limits of acceptable criticism are wider still where the target is a politician (see Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, § 59).
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 33333/04

  Subject to paragraph 2, it is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" which are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those which offend, shock or disturb (see, among many other authorities, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, § 42, and Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323, § 52).

• EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 16558/18

  KILIÇDAROGLU v. TURKEY

  The requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is impossible to fulfil and infringes freedom of opinion itself, which is a fundamental part of the right secured by Article 10 (see Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 103; McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, § 83, ECHR 2002-III; Gorelishvili v. Georgia, no. 12979/04, § 38, 5 June 2007; Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, §§ 29-30, 21 July 2005; and Fedchenko v. Russia, no. 33333/04, § 37, 11 February 2010).
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 69575/10

  RASHKIN v. RUSSIA

  That award was unusually high in absolute terms but also many times higher in relation to awards in comparable defamation cases that have come before the Court (see, for example, Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, § 12, 21 July 2005 - RUB 2, 500 to the Governor of the Ulyanovsk Region out of the RUB 500, 000 he had claimed; Fedchenko v. Russia, no. 33333/04, § 15, 11 February 2010 - RUB 5, 000 to a member of Parliament out of the RUB 500, 000 he had claimed; Novaya Gazeta and Borodyanskiy v. Russia, no. 14087/08, § 15, 28 March 2013 - RUB 60, 000 to the Governor of Omsk out of the RUB 500, 000 he had claimed).
• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 79310/13

  VINNIK v. RUSSIA

  The fact that the proceedings were civil rather than criminal in nature and that the final award was relatively small does not detract from the fact that the standards applied by the domestic courts were not compatible with the principles embodied in Article 10 (see Fedchenko v. Russia, no. 33333/04, § 42, 11 February 2010).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 9406/05

  KUNITSYNA v. RUSSIA

  The Court has on many occasions pinpointed the structural deficiency of the Russian law on defamation, as interpreted and applied at the relevant time, which made no distinction between value judgments and statements of fact, referring uniformly to "information" ("svedeniya"), and proceeded on the assumption that any such "information" was susceptible to proof in civil proceedings (see Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, § 29, 21 July 2005; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 29, 5 October 2006; Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 38, 14 December 2006; Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 47, 31 July 2007; Fedchenko v. Russia, no. 33333/04, §§ 36-41, 11 February 2010; Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, §§ 50-52, 14 October 2010; Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia, no. 27570/03, § 52, 21 December 2010; and OOO Ivpress and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 30084/11

  STOLBUNOV AND MOO SPRAVEDLIVOST v. RUSSIA

  These awards were unusually high in absolute terms but also many times higher in relation to awards in comparable defamation cases that have come before the Court (see for example, Fedchenko v. Russia, no. 33333/04, § 15, 11 February 2010, and Novaya Gazeta and Borodyanskiy v. Russia, no. 14087/08, § 15, 28 March 2013).