Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RUBINS v. LATVIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae) Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Rubins v. Latvia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RUBINS v. LATVIA

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 79040/12
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 79040/12

Papierfundstellen

• NZA 2016, 1009

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 35745/05

  NENKOVA-LALOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 79040/12

  Having regard to the central issue in the dispute the Court accepts that Article 10 is applicable to the facts of the case (compare and contrast Nenkova-Lalova v. Bulgaria, no. 35745/05, § 53, 11 December 2012; see also and Lombardi Vallauri, cited above, § 30).

  At the same time employees were expected to act in good faith and had a duty of loyalty and discretion towards their employers (see Heinisch v. Germany, no. 28274/08, § 64, ECHR 2011 (extracts)), and national authorities could be justified in insisting that employment relations should be based on mutual trust (see Nenkova-Lalova v. Bulgaria, no. 35745/05, § 60, 11 December 2012).

• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 79040/12

  In this connection the test of "necessity in a democratic society" is applied, which requires the Court 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), 26 April 1979, § 62, Series A no. 30).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 79040/12

  In carrying out its supervisory role the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities did apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and, moreover, that they based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298).

 
• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 79040/12

  Even assuming that in its employment relationships the University acted in the area of private law, the Court has previously held that in the sphere of private-law relationships the responsibility of the authorities would nevertheless be engaged if the facts complained of stemmed from a failure on their part to secure to the applicants the enjoyment of the right enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention (see Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06, § 60, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 28.08.1986 - 9228/80

  GLASENAPP c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 79040/12

  According to the Court's case-law, in order to determine whether an applicant's right protected under Article 10 of the Convention has been infringed it must first be ascertained whether the disputed measure amounted to interference with the exercise of freedom of expression, in the form, for example, of a "formality, condition, restriction or penalty" (see Glasenapp v. Germany, 28 August 1986, § 50, Series A no. 104, Kosiek v. Germany, 28 August 1986, § 36, Series A no. 105).
• EGMR, 28.08.1986 - 9704/82

  KOSIEK c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 79040/12

  According to the Court's case-law, in order to determine whether an applicant's right protected under Article 10 of the Convention has been infringed it must first be ascertained whether the disputed measure amounted to interference with the exercise of freedom of expression, in the form, for example, of a "formality, condition, restriction or penalty" (see Glasenapp v. Germany, 28 August 1986, § 50, Series A no. 104, Kosiek v. Germany, 28 August 1986, § 36, Series A no. 105).