Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 4260/04   

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/2010,63984
EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 4260/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,63984)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14.10.2010 - 4260/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,63984)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14. Januar 2010 - 4260/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,63984)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,63984) 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, 04.07.2013 - 11157/04

    ANCHUGOV AND GLADKOV v. RUSSIA

    The date of introduction is accordingly the date on which the first letter was written by the applicant or, where there is an undue delay between this date and the date on which the letter was posted, the Court may decide that the date of posting shall be considered to be the date of introduction (see Gaspari v. Slovenia, no. 21055/03, § 35, 21 July 2009; Calleja v. Malta (dec.), no. 75274/01, 18 March 2004; Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, ECHR 2002-X (extracts); and Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 32, 14 October 2010).
  • EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 16901/03

    SIREDZHUK v. UKRAINE

    Nevertheless, it fails to see the pertinence of the forum chosen by the applicant for expressing his critical views and does not consider that the context in which they were published warranted the application of the same "high tolerance" standard appropriate for media cases such as Lingens (cited above, §§ 41-42), or for other cases involving expression in the context of pluralistic debate and exchange of opinions on matters of serious public concern (see Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, §§ 41 and 45-46, 14 October 2010 and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 89, ECHR 2005-II).

    The Court next observes that it has not been argued in the present case that the applicant was precluded from submitting any evidence he deemed necessary in support of the veracity of the challenged factual statements in the domestic proceedings (compare and contrast with Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 55, 14 October 2010) or, more generally, that the courts made their decisions without analysing some material important for contextual assessment of the applicant's publication (compare and contrast with Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 3), no. 37986/09, §§ 80 and 84, 7 January 2014).

  • EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 25147/09

    TERENTYEV v. RUSSIA

    The Court has on many occasions pointed to the deficiency in the Russian law on defamation whereby it refers uniformly to "statements" and posits the assumption - as the present case illustrates - that any such "statement" is amenable to proof in civil proceedings (see Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia, no. 27570/03, § 52, 21 December 2010; Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, §§ 50-52, 14 October 2010; Fedchenko v. Russia, no. 33333/04, §§ 36-41, 11 February 2010; Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 47, 31 July 2007; Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 38, 14 December 2006; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 29, 5 October 2006; and Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, § 29, 21 July 2005).
  • EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 40877/07

    HASAN YAZICI c. TURQUIE

    A lack of procedural fairness and equality may give rise to a breach of Article 10 (see, for example, Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 53, 14 October 2010, and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 95, ECHR 2005-II).
  • EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 28727/11

    KUDESHKINA v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

    The date of introduction was accordingly the date on which the first letter was written by the applicant or, where there was an undue delay between this date and the date on which the letter was posted, the Court could decide that the postage date should be considered to be the date of introduction (see Gaspari v. Slovenia, no. 21055/03, § 35, 21 July 2009; Calleja v. Malta (dec.), no. 75274/01, 18 March 2004; Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, ECHR 2002-X (extracts); and Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 32, 14 October 2010).
  • EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 37986/09

    RINGIER AXEL SPRINGER SLOVAKIA, A.S. v. SLOVAKIA (No. 3)

    In addition, as regards the procedural guarantees inherent in Article 10 of the Convention (see, for example, Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 53, 14 October 2010, with further references), the Court observes that, in defence of its substantive rights under Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant company lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution.
  • EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 42911/08

    ORLOVSKAYA ISKRA v. RUSSIA

    The Court reiterates in this respect that publishers, irrespective of whether they associate themselves with the content of publications, play a full part in the exercise of freedom of expression by providing authors with a medium (see Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 22, ECHR 2004-IV; and Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 42, 14 October 2010).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 9096/09

    ABASHEV v. RUSSIA

    The Court therefore accepts that date as the date of introduction of the application (compare Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 33, 14 October 2010).
  • EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 33501/04

    OOO IVPRESS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    The Court has on many occasions pinpointed the structural deficiency of the Russian law on defamation which made no distinction between value judgments and statements of fact, referring uniformly to "statements" ("svedeniya"), and proceeded from the assumption that any such "statement" was amenable to proof in civil proceedings (see Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe, cited above, § 52; Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, §§ 50-52, 14 October 2010; Fedchenko v. Russia, no. 33333/04, §§ 36-41, 11 February 2010; Dyuldin and Kislov, cited above, § 47; Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 38, 14 December 2006; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 29, 5 October 2006, and Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, § 29, 21 July 2005).
  • EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 39748/05

    OOO IZDATELSKIY TSENTR KVARTIRNYY RYAD v. RUSSIA

    The Court has on many occasions pointed to the deficiency in Russian law on defamation referring uniformly to "statements" and positing the assumption - as the present case illustrates - that any such "statement" is amenable to proof in civil proceedings (see Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia, no. 27570/03, § 52, 21 December 2010; Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, §§ 50-52, 14 October 2010; Fedchenko, cited above, § 36; Dyuldin and Kislov, cited above, § 47; Karman, cited above, § 38; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 29, 5 October 2006; and Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, § 29, 21 July 2005).
  • EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 34364/08

    DILEK ASLAN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 11867/09

    SOLTÉSZ v. SLOVAKIA

  • EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 19382/08

    LYKIN v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 5699/11

    LUCIC v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 34598/12

    KOSC v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 28357/11

    AVDIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  • EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 9406/05

    KUNITSYNA v. RUSSIA

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