Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHELTSOVA v. RUSSIA

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 14888/03

  GODLEVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 44294/06

  However, the domestic courts dealing with L.K."s defamation proceedings paid no heed to the fact that the statements did not emanate from the applicant but were clearly identified as someone else's (see Godlevskiy v. Russia, no. 14888/03, § 45, 23 October 2008).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 44294/06

  The Court reiterates that there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 44294/06

  The Court further emphasises that free elections and freedom of expression, particularly freedom of political debate, together form the bedrock of any democratic system (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, § 47, Series A no. 113).

 
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 44294/06

  In the Court's view, it is clear that the award did not bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the injury to reputation suffered (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 49, Series A no. 316-B).
• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 44294/06

  On the contrary, it reiterates its consistent position that the extent of acceptable criticism is narrower as regards private individuals than for civil servants acting in the exercise of their duties (see Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06 and 2 others, § 71, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 37406/03

  DYUNDIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 44294/06

  The Court has consistently held that although it cannot be said that civil servants knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed to the extent politicians do, civil servants acting in an official capacity are, like politicians, subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than private individuals (see Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 47, ECHR 2001-III; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 80, ECHR 2004-XI; and Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, § 26, 14 October 2008).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 44294/06

  The general principles concerning the necessity of an interference with freedom of expression, which have been frequently reaffirmed by the Court since the case of Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, Series A no. 24), were summarised in Stoll v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 69698/01, § 101, ECHR 2007-V), and were reiterated more recently in Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 124, ECHR 2015; Pentikäinen v. Finland [GC], no. 11882/10, § 87, ECHR 2015; and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, ECHR 2016):.

• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 2840/10

  OOO MEMO v. RUSSIA

  The authorities therefore failed to demonstrate that there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the interference in question and the legitimate aim pursued (see, among others, Romanenko and Others v. Russia, no. 11751/03, § 49, 8 October 2009; OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v. Russia, no. 39748/05, § 46, 25 April 2017; Cheltsova v. Russia, no. 44294/06, § 100, 13 June 2017; Skudayeva v. Russia, no. 24014/07, § 39, 5 March 2019; Nadtoka v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29097/08, § 50, 8 October 2019; Tolmachev v. Russia, no. 42182/11, § 56, 2 June 2020; and Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 22649/08

  OOO REGNUM v. RUSSIA

  Reiterating that statements of fact, unlike value judgments, should be susceptible of proof (see, among other authorities, Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 76, ECHR 2004-XI, and Cheltsova v. Russia, no. 44294/06, § 80, 13 June 2017), the Court will discuss the existence of such proof as regards the impugned news items in paragraphs 72 to 76 below.
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 45791/13

  FALZON v. MALTA

  The Court has consistently held that when examining whether there is a need for an interference with freedom of expression in a democratic society in the interests of the "protection of the reputation... of others", it may be required to ascertain whether the domestic authorities have struck a fair balance when protecting two values guaranteed by the Convention which may come into conflict with each other in certain cases, namely on the one hand freedom of expression protected by Article 10, and on the other the right to respect for private life enshrined in Article 8 (see, among many other authorities, Annen v. Germany, no. 3690/10, § 55, 26 November 2015 and Cheltsova v. Russia, no. 44294/06, § 79, 13 June 2017).

 
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 27474/08

  PIROGOV c. RUSSIE

  Se référant tant à la directive no 3 adoptée par le plénum de la Cour suprême de la Fédération de Russie le 24 février 2005 qu'à l'article 10 de la Convention (voir, a contrario, Cheltsova c. Russie, no 44294/06, § 83, 13 juin 2017), elles ont explicitement qualifié les propos litigieux du requérant de déclarations de fait dont la matérialité était susceptible de preuve (paragraphe 16 ci-dessus).
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 62364/10

  IVANOV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle en outre qu'elle a déjà conclu à la violation de l'article 10 de la Convention dans de nombreuses affaires concernant la Russie, au motif que les juridictions nationales avaient failli à appliquer au niveau interne les principes pertinents (voir, parmi d'autres, OOO Ivpress et autres c. Russie, nos 33501/04 et 3 autres, §§ 67-80, 22 janvier 2013, Terentyev c. Russie, no 25147/09, §§ 18-25, 26 janvier 2017, OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad c. Russie, no 39748/05, §§ 32-47, 25 avril 2017, Cheltsova c. Russie, no 44294/06, §§ 69-101, 13 juin 2017, Skudayeva c. Russie, no 24014/07, §§ 29-40, 5 mars 2019, et Novaya Gazeta et Milashina c. Russie [comité], no 4097/06, §§ 50-58, 2 juillet 2019).
• EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 46173/15

  SHEVELEV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle également que dans de nombreuses affaires dirigées contre la Russie elle a déjà conclu à la violation de l'article 10 de la Convention au motif que les juridictions nationales n'avaient pas appliqué lesdits principes au niveau interne (voir, parmi d'autres, Krassoulia c. Russie, no 12365/03, §§ 33-46, 22 février 2007, Porubova c. Russie, no 8237/03, §§ 39-51, 8 octobre 2009, Cheltsova c. Russie, no 44294/06, §§ 69-101, 13 juin 2017, et Margulev c. Russie, no 15449/09, §§ 33-55, 8 octobre 2019).
• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 50538/12

  MESLOT c. FRANCE

  Il en est a fortiori ainsi dans le cadre d'un débat politique car il est important en période électorale de permettre aux opinions et aux informations de tous ordres de circuler librement, la liberté d'expression étant l'une des conditions qui assurent la libre expression de l'opinion du peuple sur le choix du corps législatif (Cheltsova v. Russia, no 44294/06, § 96, 13 juin 2017, et la jurisprudence citée).
• EGMR - 35043/13 (anhängig)

  NOVAYA GAZETA v. RUSSIA

  Has there been a violation of the applicant company's right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention on account the commercial courts" decisions in the defamation proceedings against it? Was the alleged interference proportionate, that is, in pursuance of one or more legitimate aims and "necessary in a democratic society" in terms of Article 10 § 2? Was the applicant company punished for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person (see Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, § 142, ECHR 2015 (extracts), and Cheltsova v. Russia, no. 44294/06, § 91, 13 June 2017)? Did the domestic courts give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the alleged interference with the applicant company's right? Did they apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention? Did they base themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v. Russia, no. 39748/05, § 46, 25 April 2017, and Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, § 24, 26 January 2017)?.
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 81060/12

  FATULLAYEV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle également que dans de nombreuses affaires dirigées contre la Russie elle a déjà conclu à la violation de l'article 10 de la Convention au motif que les juridictions nationales n'avaient pas appliqué lesdits principes au niveau interne (voir, parmi d'autres, OOO Ivpress et autres c. Russie, nos 33501/04 et 3 autres, §§ 67-80, 22 janvier 2013, Terentyev c. Russie, no 25147/09, §§ 18-25, 26 janvier 2017, OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad c. Russie, no 39748/05, §§ 32-47, 25 avril 2017, Cheltsova c. Russie, no 44294/06, §§ 69-101, 13 juin 2017, Skudayeva c. Russie, no 24014/07, §§ 29-40, 5 mars 2019, et Novaya Gazeta et Milashina c. Russie [comité], no 4097/06, §§ 50-58, 2 juillet 2019).