Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MUKHIN v. RUSSIA

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MUKHIN v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 46721/15

  ALLANAZAROVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 3642/10

  Accordingly, as a basis for its assessment the Court must examine the other information provided by the applicant in support of the claim (see, as a recent authority, Strand Lobben and Others, cited above, § 234; see also Allanazarova v. Russia, no. 46721/15, § 123, 14 February 2017).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 15449/09

  MARGULEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 3642/10

  Article 34 concerns not just direct victim or victims of an alleged violation, but also any indirect victim to whom the violation would cause harm or who would have a valid and personal interest in seeing it brought to an end (see Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, § 47, ECHR 2013 (extracts) and cases cited therein; compare Margulev v. Russia, no. 15449/09, §§ 36-38, 8 October 2019).
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 42168/06

  DMITRIYEVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 3642/10

  In this connection the Court refers to the principles established in cases concerning political ideas which challenge the existing order and the current principles and structures of a given State, with or without calls to violence (see Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 47, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III; Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 97, ECHR 2001-IX; The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 59491/00, § 79, 19 January 2006; Egitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikasi v. Turkey, no. 20641/05, §§ 70 and 74-75, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 96, 3 October 2017; and Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, §§ 85, 86 and 92, 9 May 2018).

 
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 3642/10

  The Court has also previously stated that when exercising their right to freedom of expression by way of providing an outlet and thereby assisting others in the dissemination of their statements editors-in-chief, media owners and publishers are subject to the "duties and responsibilities" under Article 10 § 2, and that their legal liability can be compatible with that Article where those statements were found to incite violence and to stir up hatred, even where they did not personally associate themselves with them (see, among others, Gürbüz and Bayar v. Turkey, no. 8860/13, §§ 43-44, 23 July 2019; compare with Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 35, Series A no. 298, in which the Court found a violation of Article 10 on account of the applicant's criminal conviction for aiding and abetting the dissemination of an interview containing racist statements).
• EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14

  Udo Pastörs: Holocaust-Leugnung ist in Europa kein Menschenrecht

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 3642/10

  Article 17 is only applicable on an exceptional basis and in extreme cases and should, in cases concerning Article 10 of the Convention, only be resorted to if it is immediately clear that the impugned statements sought to deflect this Article from its real purpose by employing the right to freedom of expression for ends clearly contrary to the values of the Convention (ibid., § 114, and Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, § 37, 3 October 2019).
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 74613/01

  Rechtssache J. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 3642/10

  The Court has consistently held that in any system of law, including criminal law, however clearly drafted a legal provision may be, there will inevitably be a need for interpretation by the courts, whose judicial function is precisely to elucidate obscure points and dispel any doubts which may remain regarding the interpretation of legislation (see, for instance, Öztürk, cited above, § 55, and, mutatis mutandis, Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 101, ECHR 2007-III).
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

  MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 3642/10

  The general principles concerning freedom of the press are well-established in the Court's case-law (see Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, 29 March 2016; Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 165, 8 November 2016; and Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, §§ 124-27 and 186, 27 June 2017; see also Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 77, ECHR 2004-XI, and Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, § 142, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29225/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 3642/10

  In this connection the Court refers to the principles established in cases concerning political ideas which challenge the existing order and the current principles and structures of a given State, with or without calls to violence (see Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 47, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III; Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 97, ECHR 2001-IX; The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 59491/00, § 79, 19 January 2006; Egitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikasi v. Turkey, no. 20641/05, §§ 70 and 74-75, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 96, 3 October 2017; and Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, §§ 85, 86 and 92, 9 May 2018).
• EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 10271/12

  KILIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 3642/10

  The decisive point when assessing whether the statements are removed from the protection of Article 10 by Article 17, is whether those statements are directed against the Convention's underlying values or whether by making the statement the author attempted to rely on the Convention to engage in an activity or perform acts aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms laid down in it (see Kilin v. Russia, no. 10271/12, § 48, 11 May 2021).
• EGMR, 21.02.2008 - 64116/00

  YALÇINER c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 3642/10

  In particular, the limits of permissible criticism are wider with regard to the Government than in relation to a private citizen, or even a politician (see Incal v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 54, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV, and Yalçiner v. Turkey, no. 64116/00, § 43, 21 February 2008).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23536/94

  Strafrechtliche Verfolgung auf Grund der Veröffentlichung eines Buches mit …
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 25239/13

  Holocaust-Leugnung: Dieudonné gescheitert
• EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07

  STOMAKHIN v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 40519/15

  BORISLAV TONCHEV v. BULGARIA

  A lawyer's fees have actually been incurred if the lawyer has deferred the payment of those fees without releasing the applicant from the obligation to pay them (see Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, § 371, 28 November 2017, and Mukhin v. Russia, no. 3642/10, § 194, 14 December 2021).
• EGMR, 04.04.2024 - 33610/18

  TRETYAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, as regards conditions of transport of detainees and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that respect; Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, §§ 69-83, 28 May 2019, as regards discriminatory treatment concerning family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; and Mukhin v. Russia, no. 3642/10, § 77-147, 14 December 2021, concerning conviction for making calls to participate in extremist activities.
• EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 67200/12

  BODALEV v. RUSSIA

  It is not the Court's task in the present case to speculate whether a conviction based on compelling factors relating to preventing disorder could have been justified (see, mutatis mutandis, Mukhin v. Russia, no. 3642/10, §§ 113-19 and 128-30, 14 December 2021).