Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BRISC v. ROMANIA

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart information);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Pressemitteilung)

  Arrêt Brisc c. Roumanie - destitution d'un procureur général pour des déclarations à la presse

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Pressemitteilung)

  Judgment Brisc v. Romania - chief prosecutor's dismissal for making statements to the press

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BRISC v. ROMANIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 42461/13

  KARÁCSONY ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 26238/10

  Making reference to the case Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC] (nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 181, ECHR 2016 (extracts)), they asked the Court to decide that the finding of a violation of Article 10 would in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.

  Admittedly, the expression of public persons, such as, for example, members of parliament, may also be protected by Article 10 (see Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, 17 May 2016), but, as the cited case shows, that expression must be exercised independently from the performance of official functions.

• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 26238/10

  The Court reiterates that the expression "prescribed by law" in the second paragraph of Article 10 requires that the impugned measure should have a legal basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see, among other authorities, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V, and Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I).
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 27510/08

  Leugnung des Völkermords an Armeniern von Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 26238/10

  laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague, and whose interpretation and application are questions of practice (see Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 131-33, ECHR 2015 (extracts), and Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, § 143, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 14139/21

  NARBUTAS v. LITHUANIA

  Moreover, it previously found that a prosecutor who had imparted information to the public in the exercise of his official duties enjoyed the protection of Article 10 (see Brisc v. Romania, no. 26238/10, §§ 104-05, 11 December 2018).
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 67369/16

  RADIO BROADCASTING COMPANY B92 AD v. SERBIA

  Such secrecy is also justified by the need to protect the opinion-forming and decision-making processes within the judiciary (see Bédat, cited above, § 68, and Brisc v. Romania, no. 26238/10, § 109, 11 December 2018).
• EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 45975/12

  IMREK c. TURQUIE

  (Sur ce type de contradiction, je renvoie à mon opinion dissidente, à laquelle s'était jointe Mme Yudkivska, dans l'affaire Brisc c. Roumanie (no 26238/10, 11 décembre 2018.) Pourtant, le requérant a tout de même exercé d'une manière ou d'une autre sa liberté d'expression, puisqu'il soutient qu'il a fait d'autres déclarations dont les autorités, considérant qu'il ne les avait pas prononcées, n'ont pas tenu compte.