Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  UNIFAUN THEATRE PRODUCTIONS LIMITED AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 37326/13
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 37326/13

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10

  Menschenrechtsgerichtshof verurteilt Türkei wegen Online-Zensur

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 37326/13

  According to the Court's established case-law, a rule is "foreseeable" if it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable any individual - if need be with appropriate advice - to regulate his conduct (see, among many other authorities, RTBF v. Belgium, no. 50084/06, § 103, ECHR 2011, and Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 57, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 38224/03

  Sanoma Uitgevers BV ./. Niederlande

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 37326/13

  In sum, the "law" is the provision in force as the competent courts have interpreted it (see, inter alia, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 83, 14 September 2010; Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 88, ECHR 2005-XI, with further references).
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 37326/13

  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 Medzlis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no 17224/11, § 68, ECHR 2017; Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V, and Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I).

 
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 37326/13

  The Court has frequently examined preventive restrictions and prior restraints, reiterating that the dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on its part (see, inter alia, Ahmet Yildirim, cited above, § 47, concerning blocking access to websites; CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 118, ECHR 2004-XI, concerning the prohibition of journalistic activity; Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 93, ECHR 2009 concerning a refusal to broadcast an advert; and Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 56, ECHR 2001-VIII concerning bans on dissemination of publications).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 37326/13

  As to the merits, the court made extensive reference to the Court's case-law, in particular Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, Series A no. 24), Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria (20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A) and Wingrove v. the United Kingdom (25 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V) as well as prominent authors in the field of human rights.
• EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87

  OTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 37326/13

  As to the merits, the court made extensive reference to the Court's case-law, in particular Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, Series A no. 24), Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria (20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A) and Wingrove v. the United Kingdom (25 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V) as well as prominent authors in the field of human rights.
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 37326/13

  The Court has frequently examined preventive restrictions and prior restraints, reiterating that the dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on its part (see, inter alia, Ahmet Yildirim, cited above, § 47, concerning blocking access to websites; CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 118, ECHR 2004-XI, concerning the prohibition of journalistic activity; Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 93, ECHR 2009 concerning a refusal to broadcast an advert; and Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 56, ECHR 2001-VIII concerning bans on dissemination of publications).