Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MARIAN MACIEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Marian Maciejewski v. Poland

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 34447/05

  By reason of the "duties and responsibilities" inherent in the exercise of the freedom of expression, the safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see, among other authorities, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III; Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, § 63, 19 April 2011).
• EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 26132/95

  BERGENS TIDENDE ET AUTRES c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 34447/05

  These factors, in turn, require consideration of other elements such as the authority of the source (Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, cited above), whether the newspaper had conducted a reasonable amount of research before publication (Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 37, Series A no. 313), 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 persons defamed the opportunity to defend themselves (Bergens Tidende and Others, cited above, § 58).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 34447/05

  Even where a statement amounts to a value judgment, the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether there exists a sufficient factual basis for the impugned statement, since even a value judgment without any factual basis to support it may be excessive (see De Haes and Gijsels, cited above, § 47; Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 2), judgment of 1 July 1997, Reports 1997-IV, p. 1276, § 33; Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 43, ECHR 2001-II; and Lewandowska-Malec, cited above, § 65).

 
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 34447/05

  This determination must be based on the following general principles emerging from the Court's case-law (see, among other authorities, CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 88-91, ECHR 2004-XI, with further references):.
• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 33352/02

  KELLER v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 34447/05

  However, the balancing exercise carried out by the domestic courts did not take sufficiently into account all standards established in the Court's case-law under Article 10 of the Convention (compare and contrast, Keller v. Hungary (dec.), no. 33352/02, 4 April 2006; Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 52, 9 January 2007).
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 51744/99

  KWIECIEN v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 34447/05

  However, the balancing exercise carried out by the domestic courts did not take sufficiently into account all standards established in the Court's case-law under Article 10 of the Convention (compare and contrast, Keller v. Hungary (dec.), no. 33352/02, 4 April 2006; Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 52, 9 January 2007).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 510/04

  TØNSBERGS BLAD AS AND HAUKOM v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 34447/05

  The Court must apply the most careful scrutiny when the sanctions imposed by a national authority are capable of discouraging the participation of the press in debates over matters of legitimate public concern (see, among other authorities, Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, § 88, ECHR 2007-III).
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  KASABOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 34447/05

  By reason of the "duties and responsibilities" inherent in the exercise of the freedom of expression, the safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see, among other authorities, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III; Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, § 63, 19 April 2011).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 35105/04

  KANIA AND KITTEL v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 34447/05

  The phrase at issue remains within the acceptable limits being closely connected with factual information provided by the applicant in his article (compare and contrast, Kania and Kittel v. Poland, no. 35105/04, § 47, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 25716/94

  JANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 34447/05

  The Court recalls that it may be necessary to protect civil servants, including public prosecutors from offensive, abusive and defamatory attacks which are likely to affect them in the performance of their duties and to damage public confidence in them and the office they hold (see Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999-I; and Lesník, cited above, § 53).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

• EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 34282/12

  WYSZKOWSKI v. POLAND

  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the freedom of expression (see, among other authorities, Med?¾lis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no. 17224/11, 27 June 2017; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, ECHR 1999-III; Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, 19 April 2011; and Marian Maciejewski v. Poland, no. 34447/05, 13 January 2015).
• EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 1443/11

  PIOTROWICZ v. POLAND

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to freedom of expression (see, for example, Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, ECHR 2004-XI; CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, ECHR 2004-XI; Stankiewicz and Others v. Poland, no. 48723/07, 14 October 2014; and Marian Maciejewski v. Poland, no. 34447/05, 13 January 2015).
• EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 70345/14

  CIESLA v. POLAND

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to freedom of expression (see, for example, Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, ECHR 2004-XI; CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, ECHR 2004-XI; Stankiewicz and Others v. Poland, no. 48723/07, 14 October 2014; and Marian Maciejewski v. Poland, no. 34447/05, 13 January 2015).