Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 22287/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2022,24269
EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 22287/08 (https://dejure.org/2022,24269)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15.09.2022 - 22287/08 (https://dejure.org/2022,24269)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15. September 2022 - 22287/08 (https://dejure.org/2022,24269)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2022,24269) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ANATOLIY YEREMENKO v. UKRAINE

    Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Manifestly ill-founded);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of ...

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

    PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 22287/08
    It may therefore prove necessary to protect that confidence against destructive attacks which are essentially unfounded, especially in view of the fact that judges who have been criticised are subject to a duty of discretion that precludes them from replying (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 34, Series A no. 313).
  • EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

    THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 22287/08
    The applicant further stated that the burden of proving that Ch."s statements were true was incompatible with exercising the right to freedom of expression, referring to Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland (25 June 1992, § 65, Series A no. 239), Lyashko v. Ukraine (no. 21040/02, § 54, 10 August 2006), Gazeta Ukraina-Tsentr v. Ukraine (no. 16695/04, 15 July 2010), and Thoma v. Luxembourg (no. 38432/97, § 58, ECHR 2001-III).
  • EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 21040/02

    LYASHKO v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 22287/08
    The applicant further stated that the burden of proving that Ch."s statements were true was incompatible with exercising the right to freedom of expression, referring to Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland (25 June 1992, § 65, Series A no. 239), Lyashko v. Ukraine (no. 21040/02, § 54, 10 August 2006), Gazeta Ukraina-Tsentr v. Ukraine (no. 16695/04, 15 July 2010), and Thoma v. Luxembourg (no. 38432/97, § 58, ECHR 2001-III).
  • EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 45083/06

    NOVAYA GAZETA AND MILASHINA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 22287/08
    While mindful of the need to make a careful distinction between statements of facts and value judgments (see CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 98, ECHR 2004-XI), the Court considers that the thrust of the present case is not the distinction between statements of facts and value judgments as such, but the fact that the applicant was found liable for having reported the opinion of a third party, namely Ch. (see Novaya Gazeta and Milashina v. Russia, no. 45083/06, §§ 70, 73, 3 October 2017).
  • EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00

    ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 22287/08
    While Article 10 of the Convention does not prohibit interim injunctions, even where they entail prior restraints on publication, the apparent dangers inherent in such measures call for the most careful scrutiny by the Court (see Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 42, ECHR 2004-IV).
  • EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

    OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 22287/08
    News is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication, even for a short period, may well deprive it of all its value and interest (see, for example, Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, §§ 60, Series A no. 216; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 2), 26 November 1991, § 51, Series A no. 217; and Association Ekin, cited above, § 56).
  • EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

    JERSILD v. DENMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 22287/08
    The Court reiterates that the punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person in an interview would seriously hamper a contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298).
  • EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 8921/05

    IGOR KABANOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 22287/08
    In addition, the fairness of the proceedings and the procedural guarantees afforded are factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with respect to the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention, including a close examination of the procedural safeguards embedded in the system to prevent arbitrary encroachments upon the freedom of expression (see Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 61, ECHR 2001-VIII; Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 95, ECHR 2005-II; Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no. 39128/05, §§ 45-46, 20 October 2009; and Igor Kabanov v. Russia, no. 8921/05, § 52, 3 February 2011).
  • EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

    LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 22287/08
    Accordingly, many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague and whose interpretation and application are questions of practice (see, for example, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 41, ECHR 2007-IV).
  • EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 47238/19

    ALMEIDA ARROJA v. PORTUGAL

    In particular, the mere fact of a criminal sanction is by itself capable of having a dissuasive effect, even if the sum involved is moderate and the person is easily able to pay (see Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 176, ECHR 2015; Monica Macovei v. Romania, no. 53028/14, § 96, 28 July 2020; and Anatoliy Yeremenko v. Ukraine, no. 22287/08, § 107, 15 September 2022).
  • EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 67369/16

    RADIO BROADCASTING COMPANY B92 AD v. SERBIA

    The Court reiterates that where fines are concerned, the relatively moderate nature of this type of sanction would not suffice to negate the risk of a chilling effect on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression (see Anatoliy Yeremenko v. Ukraine, no. 22287/08, §§ 107, 15 September 2022).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht