Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 26229/95   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2002,23615
EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 26229/95 (https://dejure.org/2002,23615)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14.03.2002 - 26229/95 (https://dejure.org/2002,23615)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14. März 2002 - 26229/95 (https://dejure.org/2002,23615)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2002,23615) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

Verfahrensgang




Kontextvorschau:





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

Wird zitiert von ... (10)  

  • EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09

    CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY

    The expression "prescribed by law" in the second paragraph of Article 10 not only requires that the impugned measure should have a legal basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see, among other authorities, VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken, cited above, § 52; Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 39, ECHR 2002-II; and Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I).
  • EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08

    Leugnung des Völkermords an den Armeniern kann von Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt sein

    The Court reiterates its case-law to the effect that the expression "prescribed by law" not only requires that the impugned measure should have a legal basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see, among other authorities, VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, § 52, ECHR 2001-VI; Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 39, ECHR 2002-II; and Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I).
  • EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12

    Mariya Alekhina u.a. ./. Russland - "Pussy Riot"-Urteil verletzt Meinungsfreiheit

    The Court reiterates that the expression "prescribed by law" in the second paragraph of Article 10 not only requires that the impugned measure should have a legal basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see, among other authorities, VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, § 52, ECHR 2001-VI; Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 39, ECHR 2002-II; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; and Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 120, ECHR 2015).
  • EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12

    Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny

    The Court reiterates its case-law to the effect that the expressions "prescribed by law" and "in accordance with the law" in Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention not only requires that the impugned measure should have a legal basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see, among other authorities, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, § 52, ECHR 2001-VI; Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 39, ECHR 2002-II; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; Vyerentsov, cited above, § 52; Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, §§ 64-65, ECHR 2004-I; and Sindicatul "Pastorul cel Bun" v. Romania [GC], no. 2330/09, § 153, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 1413/08

    Verstoß gegen Religions- und Meinungsfreiheit: russisches Verbot von islamischen

    The Court reiterates that the expression "prescribed by law" in the second paragraph of Article 10 not only requires that the impugned measure should have a legal basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see, among other authorities, VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, § 52, ECHR 2001-VI; Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 39, ECHR 2002-II; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; and Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 120, ECHR 2015).
  • EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 54977/12

    MAGYARORSZÁGI EVANGÉLIUMI TESTVÉRKÖZÖSSÉG v. HUNGARY

    In a similar vein, a real loss of opportunities may also warrant monetary compensation (see, mutatis mutandis and among other authorities, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, §§ 219-220, ECHR 2012; Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 54, ECHR 2002-II; Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 70, ECHR 2000-VIII; and Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 42, Series A no. 37).
  • EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 30160/04

    DZHAVADOV v. RUSSIA

    Although Article 10 does not in terms prohibit the imposition of prior restraints on publications, the relevant law must provide a clear indication of the circumstances when such restraints are permissible, especially when they are to block publication of a periodical completely (see Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 40, ECHR 2002-II).
  • EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 45214/99

    SILDEDZIS v. POLAND

    However, the Court does not rule out that the applicant may have suffered some loss of opportunity which must be taken into consideration (Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, 14 March 2002, § 54).
  • EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 3490/03

    TANASOAICA c. ROUMANIE

    En raison de cette fonction de la presse, la liberté journalistique implique aussi le recours possible à une certaine dose d'exagération, voire de provocation (Gaweda c. Pologne, no 26229/95, § 34, CEDH 2002-II).
  • EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 3330/12

    JGK STATYBA LTD v. LITHUANIA

    Without speculating on the profits which the applicant company would have achieved if the violations of the Convention had not occurred, the Court observes that the company suffered a real loss of opportunities (see, mutatis mutandis, Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 54, ECHR 2002-II) and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 219-220, ECHR 2012).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht