Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LYKIN v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  LYKIN v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 19382/08

  The Court considers that the present complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention only, which constitutes a lex specialis in relation to the applicant's complaint under Article 13 (see Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, § 49, Series A no. 296-A).
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 33502/07

  MARINOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 19382/08

  In exercising its supervisory function, the Court must look at the interference complained of in the light of the case as a whole, including the status of the applicant and that of the plaintiff in the domestic proceedings, the content of the critical comments held against the applicant, as well as the context and the manner in which they were made public (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 35, ECHR 2001-II; Siredzhuk, cited above, § 81; and, mutatis mutandis, Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 33502/07, 30599/10, 8241/11 and 61863/11, § 86, 12 July 2016).
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 4260/04

  ANDRUSHKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 19382/08

  In deciding to make public the letter addressed to him personally, the applicant consciously and willfully provided its authors with a medium for presenting their views, thus playing a full part in disseminating the relevant statements (see mutatis mutandis Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 22, ECHR 2004-IV, with further references, and Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 42, 14 October 2010).

 
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 19382/08

  In line with its well-established case-law, the Court reiterates that, while freedom of expression is important for everybody, it is especially so for elected representatives of the people, who represent the electorate, draw attention to their preoccupations and defend their interests (see Castells v. Spain, judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, pp. 22-23, § 42, and Jerusalem, cited above, § 36).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 19382/08

  There is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or debate on matters of public interest (see, among other authorities, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 13071/03

  STANDARD VERLAGS GMBH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 19382/08

  What matters, however, is whether the impugned statements, seen in the context of the manner and scope of their dissemination, can be viewed as fair comment on matters of public interest (see, for instance, Jerusalem, cited above, § 44; Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria, no. 13071/03, § 55, 2 November 2006; and Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 95, 26 February 2009) or whether, instead, they amounted to a gratuitous personal attack (see, for example, Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 19382/08

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that the test of necessity requires it 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, among many other authorities, CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 88 and 90 ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 61561/08

  INSTYTUT EKONOMICHNYKH REFORM, TOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 19382/08

  A politician is certainly entitled to have his reputation protected, even when he is not acting in his private capacity, but in such cases the requirements of that protection have to be weighed against the interests of the open discussion of political issues (see, as a recent authority, Instytut Ekonomichnykh Reform, TOV v. Ukraine, no. 61561/08, § 44, 2 June 2016).
• EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09

  CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 19382/08

  The Court further reiterates that it is for the national courts to assess the relevance of proposed evidence (see Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 198, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 19382/08

  The Court further reiterates that the content of the letter was disclosed orally before a fairly small local audience, who should have been reasonably well-informed about the underlying facts (for example, compare with Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 34, Series A no. 298, and Sokolowski v. Poland, no. 15337/02, § 49, 24 October 2006).
• EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 43425/98

  Meinungsfreiheit (konstitutive Bedeutung in der Demokratie; Eingriff; …
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

• EGMR, 18.11.2021 - 27801/12

  MARINONI c. ITALIE

  « In exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the Court must look at the impugned interference in the light of the case as a whole, including the status of the applicant and that of the plaintiff in the domestic proceedings, the content of the critical comments held against the applicant, as well as the context and the manner in which they were made public (see Lykin v. Ukraine, no. 19382/08, § 25, 12 January 2017; and Makraduli, cited above, § 62), bearing in mind that assertions about matters of public interest may, on that basis, constitute value judgments rather than statements of fact (see Makraduli, cited above, § 62) and that an applicant clearly involved in a public debate on an important issue is required to fulfill a no more demanding standard than that of due diligence as in such circumstances an obligation to prove the factual statements may deprive him or her of the protection afforded by Article 10 (see Makraduli, cited above, § 75, with further references) (Monica Macovei c. Roumanie, 53028/14, 28/07/2020, par.
• EGMR, 28.07.2020 - 53028/14

  MONICA MACOVEI v. ROMANIA

  In exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the Court must look at the impugned interference in the light of the case as a whole, including the status of the applicant and that of the plaintiff in the domestic proceedings, the content of the critical comments held against the applicant, as well as the context and the manner in which they were made public (see Lykin v. Ukraine, no. 19382/08, § 25, 12 January 2017; and Makraduli, cited above, § 62), bearing in mind that assertions about matters of public interest may, on that basis, constitute value judgments rather than statements of fact (see Makraduli, cited above, § 62) and that an applicant clearly involved in a public debate on an important issue is required to fulfil a no more demanding standard than that of due diligence as in such circumstances an obligation to prove the factual statements may deprive him or her of the protection afforded by Article 10 (see Makraduli, cited above, § 75, with further references).
• EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 47881/11

  PRUNEA v. ROMANIA

  Moreover, the Court has also held that in the field of political debate, political invective often spills over into the personal sphere; such are the hazards of politics and the free debate of ideas, which are the guarantees of a democratic society (see, among the most recent authorities, Lykin v. Ukraine, no. 19382/08, § 29, 12 January 2017).