Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2008,52740
EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03 (https://dejure.org/2008,52740)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14.02.2008 - 36207/03 (https://dejure.org/2008,52740)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14. Februar 2008 - 36207/03 (https://dejure.org/2008,52740)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,52740) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (17)

  • EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37520/07

    NISKASAARI AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

    The Court observes that responsible journalism requires checking of sources from the standpoint of their accuracy in order to prevent factual errors (see, mutatis mutandis, Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 65, 14 February 2008).

    The Court would observe in this connection that in view of the margin of appreciation left to Contracting States a criminal measure as a response to defamation cannot, as such, be considered disproportionate to the aim pursued (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-..., Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-II and Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 68, 14 February 2008).

  • EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 39900/06

    Semik-Orzech ./. Polen

    Z uwagi wlasnie na te "obowiazki i odpowiedzialnosci", gwarancje przyznawane dziennikarzom na mocy Artykulu 10 w zakresie relacjonowania kwestii bedacych przedmiotem szerokiego zainteresowania opinii publicznej podlegaja zastrze?¼eniu, ?¼e dziennikarze powinni dzialac w dobrej wierze w celu dostarczenia dokladnych i rzetelnych informacji, zgodnie z zasadami etyki zawodowej (patrz na przyklad Goodwin przeciwko Zjednoczonemu Królestwu, 27 marca 1996, § 39, Raporty 1996-II; Fressoz i Roire przeciwko Francji [GC], nr 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I; Pedersen i Baadsgaard przeciwko Danii [GC], nr 49017/99, § 78, ECHR 2004-XI; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens i July przeciwko Francji [GC], numery 21279/02 i 36448/02, § 67, ECHR 2007-...; Rumyana Ivanova przeciwko Bulgarii, nr 36207/03, § 61, 14 lutego 2008 oraz Weigt przeciwko Polsce (dec.), nr 74232/01, 11 pa?ºdziernika 2005).

    W tym wzgledzie, Trybunal pragnie wskazac, ?¼e zgodnie z jego orzecznictwem, im powa?¼niejszy stawia sie zarzut, tym mocniejsze faktyczne podstawy nale?¼y ku temu przedstawic (patrz Cumpana i Mazare, § 101; Pedersen i Baadsgaard, § 78 in fine; powolana wy?¼ej, oraz Rumyana Ivanova przeciwko Bulgarii, nr 36207/03, § 64, 14 lutego 2008).

  • EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

    MAKARENKO v. RUSSIA

    Having made the offending allegations, the applicant was liable for their truthfulness (see Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 62, 14 February 2008).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 45130/06

    RUOKANEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

    In view of the margin of appreciation left to Contracting States a criminal measure as a response to defamation cannot, as such, be considered disproportionate to the aim pursued (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-..., Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-II and Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 68, 14 February 2008).
  • EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

    KASABOVA v. BULGARIA

    In Rumyana Ivanova it held, in referring to criminal libel proceedings, that a requirement for defendants to prove to a reasonable standard that the allegations made by them were substantially true did not, as such, contravene the Convention (see Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, §§ 39 and 68, 14 February 2008).
  • EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

    ALEKSEY PETROV v. BULGARIA

    It is not the Court's task to ascertain whether the way it resolved those points was correct in terms of Bulgarian law, because, not being a court of appeal in respect of the national courts, it cannot deal with errors of fact or law allegedly made by them (see, among many other authorities, Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 43, 14 February 2008, with further references).
  • EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 184/06

    SAARISTO AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

    The Court would observe in this connection that in view of the margin of appreciation left to Contracting States a criminal measure as a response to defamation cannot, as such, be considered disproportionate to the aim pursued (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-..., Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-II and Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 68, 14 February 2008).
  • EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 25333/06

    EUROPAPRESS HOLDING D.O.O. v. CROATIA

    In other words, while the requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is generally impossible to fulfil and infringes Article 10 (see, for example, Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 103, and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), 23 May 1991, § 63, Series A no. 204), the requirement to prove to a reasonable standard of proof that a factual statement was substantially true does not contravene Article 10 of the Convention (see, for example, McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, § 87, ECHR 2002-III; Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 39, 14 February 2008; and Alithia Publishing Company Ltd and Constantinides v. Cyprus, no. 17550/03, § 70, 22 May 2008).
  • EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 23806/03

    DLUGOLECKI v. POLAND

    In view of the margin of appreciation left to Contracting States a criminal measure as a response to defamation cannot, as such, be considered disproportionate to the aim pursued (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-..., Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-II and Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 68, 14 February 2008).
  • EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28940/95

    FOKA v. TURKEY

    In this connection the Court refers to the following general principles that emerge from its settled case-law (see Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, §§ 68-70, ECHR 2004-XI, with further references, and Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 57, 14 February 2008):.
  • EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 41158/09

    KOPRIVICA v. MONTENEGRO

  • EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 44400/09

    UGUR c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48059/06

    DIMITROV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 21.01.2010 - 2179/08

    RUKAJ c. GRECE

  • EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 17174/03

    KES c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 40315/05

    AYHAN c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 46712/06

    ZIEMBINSKI v. POLAND

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht