Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MARCINKEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MARCINKEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2022 - 24919/20

  The general principles concerning the necessity of an interference with freedom of expression, reiterated many times by the Court since its judgment in Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, Series A no. 24), were summarised in, among many other authorities, Morice v. France ([GC], no. 29369/10, § 124, ECHR 2015, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 19.04.2018 - 41841/12

  OTTAN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2022 - 24919/20

  The Court, relying on its relevant case-law, considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (see Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, § 295, ECHR 2015 (extracts); Tavares de Almeida Fernandes and Almeida Fernandes v. Portugal, no. 31566/13, § 88, 17 January 2017; and Ottan v. France, no. 41841/12, § 79, 19 April 2018).
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 31566/13

  TAVARES DE ALMEIDA FERNANDES AND ALMEIDA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2022 - 24919/20

  The Court, relying on its relevant case-law, considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (see Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, § 295, ECHR 2015 (extracts); Tavares de Almeida Fernandes and Almeida Fernandes v. Portugal, no. 31566/13, § 88, 17 January 2017; and Ottan v. France, no. 41841/12, § 79, 19 April 2018).
• EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 22824/04

  FLUX v. MOLDOVA (No. 6)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2022 - 24919/20

  Nonetheless, that right was not absolute and those who exercised it, irrespective of whether or not they were journalists, had the duty to act in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (the court referred to, inter alia, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 87, ECHR 2005-II, and Flux v. Moldova (no. 6), no. 22824/04, § 26, 29 July 2008).

• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 47238/19

  ALMEIDA ARROJA v. PORTUGAL

  Similarly, it finds that the number of hours claimed for certain tasks appears to be inflated in view of the nature of the complaint brought by the applicant under Article 10 of the Convention and the recurrent use of verbatim copies of passages from the Court's case-law (see, mutatis mutandis, Karácsony and Others, cited above, § 190, and Marcinkevicius v. Lithuania, no. 24919/20, § 103, 15 November 2022).
• EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 14139/21

  NARBUTAS v. LITHUANIA

  In the present case, although the domestic authorities assessed some of the relevant criteria, such as whether the applicant was a public figure, there is no indication that they carried out the required balancing exercise in conformity with the Court's case-law, either explicitly or at least in substance (see paragraphs 83 and 87 above and compare and contrast Marcinkevicius v. Lithuania, no. 24919/20, § 78, 15 November 2022).
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 84048/17

  EIGIRDAS AND VĮ "DEMOKRATIJOS PLETROS FONDAS" v. LITHUANIA

  In the context of Article 10 of the Convention, the Court must take account of the circumstances and overall background against which the statements in question were made (see, among many other authorities, Lingens, § 40, and Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, § 62, both cited above; see also, mutatis mutandis, Marcinkevicius v. Lithuania, no. 24919/20, § 85, 15 November 2022).
• VG Ansbach, 31.05.2023 - AN 9 K 22.01633

  Beseitigungsanordnung für Gartenhütte und Einfriedung

  Eine bauliche Anlage ist dann eine untergeordnete Nebenanlage, wenn sie funktional und räumlich - gegenständlich dem primären Nutzungszweck der Hauptanlage oder des Baugebiets zugeordnet ist und in diesem Verhältnis eine nachrangige, sinnvoll ergänzende Rolle einnimmt (…BeckOK, BauNVO/Henkel, 32. Edition, 15.1.2023, BauNVO, § 14 - beck-online Rn. 22 unter Hinweis auf u.a. BVerwG, NJW 1983, 2713 f.; BayVGH, BeckRS 2022, 31333).