Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WEIGT v. POLAND

  Art. 10 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 74232/01

  This power of appreciation is not, however, unlimited but goes hand in hand with a European supervision by the Court, whose task it is to give a final ruling on whether a restriction is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 (see, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 58, ECHR 1999-III, and Cumpana and Mazare v. Romania [GC], judgment of 17 December 2004, no. 33348/95, § 88).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 74232/01

  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 Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 42, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 74232/01

  As to whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society, the Court recalls that the test of "necessity in a democratic society" requires it to determine whether the interference complained of 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 are relevant and sufficient (see the Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 38, § 62).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 74232/01

  Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (see, for instance, the Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, pp. 29-30, § 59).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94

  CEYLAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 74232/01

  Further, as regards the requirement of necessity, and in particular as regards the question of proportionality, the Court recalls that in assessing the proportionality of the interference, the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are also factors to be taken into account (see Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 49, ECHR 1999-IV; Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, 27 May 2003).

• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 23806/03

  DLUGOLECKI v. POLAND

  Moreover, it remained open to the courts to resume the proceedings at any time during the period of his probation should any of the circumstances defined by law so justify (see Dabrowski v. Poland, no. 18235/02, § 36, 19 December 2006, and Weigt v Poland (dec.), 74232/01, 11 October 2005).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 39900/06

  Semik-Orzech ./. Polen

  21279/02 and 36448/02, § 67, ECHR 2007-...; Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 61, 14 February 2008 and Weigt v. Poland (dec.), no. 74232/01, 11 October 2005).