Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RUMYANA IVANOVA v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d No violation of Art. 10 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (24)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 38432/97

  THOMA v. LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

  It cannot therefore be said that the applicant was reporting what others had said and had simply omitted to distance herself from it (see, mutatis mutandis, Radio France and Others, cited above, § 38; Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, §§ 63 and 64, ECHR 2001-III; and Pedersen and Baadsgaard, cited above, § 77).
• EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 51279/99

  Frankreich wegen Verletzung der Pressefreiheit zu Schadensersatz verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

  As already noted (see paragraph 41 above), in the ensuing proceedings the applicant was allowed to adduce evidence of the truth of her averment (see, by contrast, Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 66, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 20.04.2006 - 47579/99

  RAICHINOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

  It should also be observed that the proceedings were instituted on the initiative of Mr M. D., not by a State authority (see, by contrast, Raichinov v. Bulgaria, no. 47579/99, § 50 in fine, 20 April 2006), and that, though they started as criminal, they ended with a mere administrative punishment (see paragraphs 26 and 34 above).

 
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

  In this connection, the Court observes that it is unable to follow the applicant's argument that the very use of criminal-law sanctions in defamation cases is in violation of Article 10. In view of the margin of appreciation left to Contracting States by that provision, a criminal measure as a response to defamation cannot, as such, be considered disproportionate to the aim pursued (see Radio France and Others, cited above, § 40; and Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-...).
• EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 35125/97

  PANEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

  The statement that Mr M. D. featured on the list compiled by the Bulgarian National Bank through his ownership of three specifically named companies was clearly an allegation of fact and as such susceptible to proof (see, among many other authorities, McVicar, § 83; Steel and Morris, §§ 90 in fine and 94, both cited above; and Panev v. Bulgaria, no. 35125/97, Commission decision of 3 December 1997, unreported).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

  It also awarded only one fifth of the damages sought by Mr M. D. and gave cogent reasons for its ruling on this point (see paragraphs 22 and 26 above), in line with this Court's case-law that an award of damages for defamation must bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the injury to reputation suffered (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, pp. 75-76, § 49; and Steel and Morris, cited above, § 96).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

  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, mutatis mutandis, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 25.05.2004 - 994/03

  CORNELIS c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

  The Court starts with the general observation that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I), as it is not a court of appeal from these courts (see, among many other authorities, Cornelis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 994/03, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

  In addition, a requirement for defendants in defamation proceedings to prove to a reasonable standard that the allegations made by them were substantially true does not, as such, contravene the Convention (see McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, § 87, ECHR 2002-III; and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 93, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

  It should further be observed that, being a politician and a candidate for public office, Mr M. D. had inevitably and knowingly laid himself open to public scrutiny (see Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 26, § 42; and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, p. 26, § 59), in particular as regards issues touching on his financial integrity.
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND
• EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 15450/89

  CASADO COCA v. SPAIN

• 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

  21279/02 and 36448/02, § 67, ECHR 2007-...; Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 61, 14 February 2008 and Weigt v. Poland (dec.), no. 74232/01, 11 October 2005).

  The Court would point out in that connection that according to its case-law, the more serious an allegation is, the more solid its factual basis should be (see CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre, § 101; Pedersen and Baadsgaard, § 78 in fine; cited above, and Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 64, 14 February 2008).

• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 43206/07

  Kaperzyński ./. Polen

  In this connection, the Court reiterates 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], cited above, § 59; Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-II; Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 68, 14 February 2008; Reinboth and Others v. Finland, no. 30865/08, § 90, 25 January 2011).

 
• 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, 18.11.2021 - 27801/12

  MARINONI c. ITALIE

  The Court has held that such an approach does not, as such, contravene the Convention (see Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, §§ 39 and 68, 14 February 2008; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, § 156, 22 December 2009; and Rukaj v. Greece (dec.), no. 2179/08, 21 January 2010), and has held a lack of effort to make out that defence against applicants (see Mahmudov and Agazade v. Azerbaijan, no. 35877/04, § 44, 18 December 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, 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, 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, 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, 05.09.2023 - 67369/16

  RADIO BROADCASTING COMPANY B92 AD v. SERBIA

  Lastly, the Court must assure itself that the penalty to which the applicant company was subjected did not upset the balance between its freedom of expression and the need to protect Z.P.'s reputation (see Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 69, 14 February 2008).
• EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28940/95

  FOKA v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 34823/05

  ÖZÇELEBI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 5126/05

  YORDANOVA AND TOSHEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 23806/03

  DLUGOLECKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 25333/06

  EUROPAPRESS HOLDING D.O.O. v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48059/06

  DIMITROV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 41158/09

  KOPRIVICA v. MONTENEGRO
• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 44400/09

  UGUR c. TURQUIE
• 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, 14.12.2021 - 79709/13

  YORDANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 32638/11

  TOSHEVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 46712/06

  ZIEMBINSKI v. POLAND