Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Nos. 1 AND 2)

  Art. 10 MRK
  Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 23676/03, 3002/03
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 23676/03

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 23676/03

  Secondly, the Court recalls that when it has been called upon to decide whether to exempt newspapers from their ordinary obligation to verify factual statements that are defamatory of private individuals, it has exercised a discretion after taking into account various factors, particularly the nature and degree of the defamation and the extent to which the newspaper could have reasonably regarded its sources as reliable with regard to the allegations (Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 66, ECHR 1999-III and McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, § 84, ECHR 2002-III).

  Not only does the press have the task of imparting such information and ideas: the public also has a right to receive them (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-III).

• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 46311/99

  McVICAR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 23676/03

  Secondly, the Court recalls that when it has been called upon to decide whether to exempt newspapers from their ordinary obligation to verify factual statements that are defamatory of private individuals, it has exercised a discretion after taking into account various factors, particularly the nature and degree of the defamation and the extent to which the newspaper could have reasonably regarded its sources as reliable with regard to the allegations (Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 66, ECHR 1999-III and McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, § 84, ECHR 2002-III).

  As the Court said in the above-cited McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, § 72-73, ECHR 2002-III:.

• EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 26132/95

  BERGENS TIDENDE ET AUTRES c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 23676/03

  These factors, in turn, require consideration of other factors such as the authority of the source (Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], cited above), whether the newspaper had conducted a reasonable amount of research before publication (Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313, § 37), whether the newspaper presented the story in a reasonably balanced manner (Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no. 26132/95, § 57, ECHR 2000-IV) and whether the newspaper gave the person defamed the opportunity to defend themselves (Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, cited above, § 58).

 
• EGMR, 22.11.1995 - 20166/92

  S.W. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 23676/03

  For all these reasons, Court does not consider that the interpretation of the relevant law made by the High Court in the applicant's case could be said to have gone beyond what could be reasonably foreseen in the circumstances (see, mutatis mutandis, S.W. v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335-B, p. 42, § 36).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 23676/03

  These factors, in turn, require consideration of other factors such as the authority of the source (Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], cited above), whether the newspaper had conducted a reasonable amount of research before publication (Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313, § 37), whether the newspaper presented the story in a reasonably balanced manner (Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no. 26132/95, § 57, ECHR 2000-IV) and whether the newspaper gave the person defamed the opportunity to defend themselves (Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, cited above, § 58).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 23676/03

  A law that confers a discretion is not in itself inconsistent with this requirement, provided that the scope of the discretion and the manner of its exercise are indicated with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim in question, to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see, for instance, the Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, pp. 71-72, para. 37).".

• BVerfG, 21.03.2007 - 1 BvR 2231/03

  Verurteilung eines Presseunternehmens zur Unterlassung einer erneuten …

  Es steht mit der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte zu Art. 10 Abs. 2 EMRK nicht im Widerspruch, wenn nach nationalem Recht bei der Abwägung mit gegenläufigen Interessen bestimmend wird, ob eigene Nachforschungen des Wahrheitsgehalts der in den Artikel eingebauten Ausführungen eines Dritten erfolgt oder verbleibende Zweifel an der Richtigkeit der Information benannt worden sind (…vgl. zur Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte EGMR - Große Kammer -, Urteil vom 17. Dezember 2004, Beschwerde-Nr. 49017/99, Pedersen und Baadsgaard gegen Dänemark, Rn. 77; EGMR…, Urteil vom 30. März 2004, Beschwerde-Nr. 53984/00, Radio France gegen Frankreich, Rn. 37 f.; EGMR, Urteil vom 11. Oktober 2005, Beschwerde-Nr. 23676/03 u.a., Krone Verlags GmbH gegen Österreich (Nr. 4), Rn. 34 f.).