Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TIMES NEWSPAPERS LIMITED AND KENNEDY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  TIMES NEWSPAPERS LIMITED AND KENNEDY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 31475/05

  KENEDI v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 64367/14

  In light of recent decisions of this Court, namely Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary, no. 37374/05, 14 April 2009, and Kenedi v. Hungary, no. 31475/05, 26 May 2009, Mr Kennedy argued in particular that pursuant to section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (see paragraph 77 below), section 32(2) of the FOIA should be interpreted in a way compatible with the Convention, including in particular the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10.

  Although a number of recent Chamber judgments had departed from this position, the majority Justices were of the view that they had failed to give a clearly reasoned analysis of the matter or to explain why they had departed from earlier authority (citing Sdruzení Jihoceské Matky v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 19101/03, 10 July 2006; Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary, no. 37374/05, 14 April 2009; Kenedi v. Hungary, no. 31475/05, 26 May 2009; Shapovalov v. Ukraine, no. 45835/05, 31 July 2012; Youth Initiative for Human Rights v. Serbia, no. 48135/06, 25 June 2013; and Österreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung, Stärkung und Schaffung v. Austria, no. 39534/07, 28 November 2013).

• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 64367/14

  The majority referred to the Court's inconsistency as regards the extent to which a general right of access to information arose under Article 10. They pointed out that older judgments, a number of which had been adopted by the full plenary Court or the Grand Chamber, indicated that Article 10 only protected the right to receive information which others wished or were willing to impart and did not give rise to a general right of access to information (citing, for example, Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116; Gaskin v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 160; Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 10.07.2006 - 19101/03

  SDRUZENÍ JIHOCESKÉ MATKY c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 64367/14

  Although a number of recent Chamber judgments had departed from this position, the majority Justices were of the view that they had failed to give a clearly reasoned analysis of the matter or to explain why they had departed from earlier authority (citing Sdruzení Jihoceské Matky v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 19101/03, 10 July 2006; Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary, no. 37374/05, 14 April 2009; Kenedi v. Hungary, no. 31475/05, 26 May 2009; Shapovalov v. Ukraine, no. 45835/05, 31 July 2012; Youth Initiative for Human Rights v. Serbia, no. 48135/06, 25 June 2013; and Österreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung, Stärkung und Schaffung v. Austria, no. 39534/07, 28 November 2013).

 
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10454/83

  GASKIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 64367/14

  The majority referred to the Court's inconsistency as regards the extent to which a general right of access to information arose under Article 10. They pointed out that older judgments, a number of which had been adopted by the full plenary Court or the Grand Chamber, indicated that Article 10 only protected the right to receive information which others wished or were willing to impart and did not give rise to a general right of access to information (citing, for example, Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116; Gaskin v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 160; Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25644/94

  T.W. v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 64367/14

  When a remedy has been pursued, use of another remedy which has essentially the same objective is not required (see Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 58, 15 October 2009, and T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 34, 29 April 1999; see also Moreira Barbosa and Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, 15 November 2005).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 64367/14

  An applicant who has exhausted a remedy that is apparently effective and sufficient cannot be required also to have tried others that were available but probably no more likely to be successful (see Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III; see also Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004-V (extracts); Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts); and Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14, 28 April 2009).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

  KARAKO v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 64367/14

  An applicant who has exhausted a remedy that is apparently effective and sufficient cannot be required also to have tried others that were available but probably no more likely to be successful (see Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III; see also Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004-V (extracts); Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts); and Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14, 28 April 2009).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 64367/14

  The existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust that avenue of redress (see Vuckovic and Others, cited above, § 74 and Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 70, 17 September 2009).
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 64367/14

  46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, § 69, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 5201/11

  SHER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 64367/14

  Therefore, it is in principle for the national courts to determine questions relating to the appropriateness of domestic remedies, and the finding of an independent and impartial superior court that a remedy is available will generally constitute prima facie evidence of the existence of that remedy (see Sher and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 5201/11, § 136, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).