Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FLUX v. MOLDOVA (No. 4)

  Art. 10 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 17294/04

  The requirement to prove the truth of a value-judgment is impossible to fulfil and infringes the 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, and Busuioc, cited above, § 61).
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 35071/97

  GUNDUZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 17294/04

  This power of appreciation is not, however, unlimited but goes hand in hand with 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 (for the recapitulation of the relevant principles in more detail, see Giniewski v. France, no. 64016/00, §§ 43-54, ECHR 2006-...; Aydın Tatlav v. Turkey, no. 50692/99, §§ 22-27, 2 May 2006; Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, § 38, ECHR 2003-XI; and Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, §§ 65-69, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts), with further references).
• EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 50692/99

  AYDIN TATLAV c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 17294/04

  This power of appreciation is not, however, unlimited but goes hand in hand with 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 (for the recapitulation of the relevant principles in more detail, see Giniewski v. France, no. 64016/00, §§ 43-54, ECHR 2006-...; Aydın Tatlav v. Turkey, no. 50692/99, §§ 22-27, 2 May 2006; Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, § 38, ECHR 2003-XI; and Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, §§ 65-69, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts), with further references).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 17294/04

  The Court notes that the article was written by a journalist and reiterates that the pre-eminent role of the press in a democratic society is to impart ideas and opinions on political matters and on other matters of public interest (see Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, § 65).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 17294/04

  Moreover, it has to be recalled that the journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313, § 38).

• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  KASABOVA v. BULGARIA

  The statements made by the applicant (see paragraph 13 above) were clearly allegations of fact and not value judgments, and as such susceptible to proof (see Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 103; CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re, cited above, §§ 98-101; and Flux v. Moldova (no. 4), no. 17294/04, § 36, 12 February 2008).