Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  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 ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 48195/06

  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 - 48195/06

  The Court recalls that there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on debate on matters of public interest (see 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 - 48195/06

  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 - 48195/06

  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 qualification of the contested statement by the domestic courts (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 35, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 48195/06

  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, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 48195/06

  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 - 48195/06

  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, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 48195/06

  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, 09.03.2017 - 55135/10

  ATHANASIOS MAKRIS c. GRÈCE

  Quant à l'argument du Gouvernement selon lequel la présente affaire doit être distinguée de l'affaire Mika (précitée) au motif que, en l'espèce, l'intéressé était identifié expressément, la Cour observe que, pour qu'une critique soit efficace, elle peut parfois être dirigée contre des personnes nommément désignées, faute de quoi le débat public sur des questions d'intérêt général perdrait en substance et risquerait de devenir un concept fictif (Fedchenko c. Russie (no 2), no 48195/06, § 59, 11 février 2010).
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 68373/14

  RUSU v. ROMANIA

  The Court reiterates the general principles for assessing the necessity of an interference with the exercise of freedom of expression in the interest of the "protection of the reputation or rights of others" (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, §§ 78-95, 7 February 2012), including in circumstances involving civil servants or teachers in particular (Mamère v. France, no. 12697/03, § 27, ECHR 2006-XIII; Ferihumer v. Austria, no. 30547/03, § 24, 1 February 2007; Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 2), no. 48195/06, § 35, 11 February 2010; Mahi v. Belgium (dec.), no. 57462/19, §§ 30-32, 7 July 2020; and Balaskas v. Greece, no. 73087/17, §§ 36-39, 42, 47-48, 56 and 61, 5 November 2020).