Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STANKIEWICZ AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Stankiewicz and Others v. Poland

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  STANKIEWICZ AND OTHERS v. POLAND

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 48723/07
• EGMR, 20.01.2016 - 48723/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 18.10.1982 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN AND DE MEYERE v. BELGIUM (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 48723/07

  Furthermore, an applicant is entitled to an award in respect of the costs and expenses incurred by him/her at domestic level to prevent the breach found by the Court or to obtain redress therefor (see, among other authorities, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium (Article 50), 18 October 1982, § 17, Series A no. 54).
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  KASABOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 48723/07

  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, among other authorities, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III; Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, § 63, 19 April 2011).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 48723/07

  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, among other authorities, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III; Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, § 63, 19 April 2011).

 
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 510/04

  TØNSBERGS BLAD AS AND HAUKOM v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 48723/07

  The Court must apply the most careful scrutiny when the sanctions imposed by a national authority are capable of discouraging the participation of the press in debates over matters of legitimate public concern (see, among other authorities, Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, § 88, ECHR 2007-III).
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 48723/07

  This determination must be based on the following general principles emerging from the Court's case-law (see, among other authorities, CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 88-91, ECHR 2004-XI, with further references):.
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  SCHARSACH ET NEWS VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 48723/07

  The Court, however, notes that the third applicant is in principle entitled to recover any sums that it has paid in fees and costs to W.D., by reason of their direct link with the Court of Appeal's judgment which the Court found to be in breach of its right to freedom of expression (see Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 50, Series A no. 103; Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 50, ECHR 2003-XI; and Yordanova and Toshev, cited above, § 78).
• EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 26132/95

  BERGENS TIDENDE ET AUTRES c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 48723/07

  These factors, in turn, require consideration of other elements such as the authority of the source (Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, cited above), whether the newspaper had conducted a reasonable amount of research before publication (Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 37, Series A no. 313), whether the newspaper presented the story in a reasonably balanced manner (Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no. 26132/95, § 57, ECHR 2000-IV) and whether the newspaper gave the persons defamed the opportunity to defend themselves (Bergens Tidende and Others, cited above, § 58).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 48723/07

  These factors, in turn, require consideration of other elements such as the authority of the source (Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, cited above), whether the newspaper had conducted a reasonable amount of research before publication (Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 37, Series A no. 313), whether the newspaper presented the story in a reasonably balanced manner (Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no. 26132/95, § 57, ECHR 2000-IV) and whether the newspaper gave the persons defamed the opportunity to defend themselves (Bergens Tidende and Others, cited above, § 58).