Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  REBECHENKO v. RUSSIA

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  REBECHENKO v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 10257/17

  Consequently, the Convention provisions securing this right apply not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24; Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 78, 7 February 2012; and Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland [GC], no. 16354/06, § 48, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 10257/17

  Nevertheless, the guarantees or Article 10 of the Convention are not absolute, and are subject to possible restrictions, which, however, must be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, among other authorities, Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298; and Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 30, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 10257/17

  The Court reiterates in this connection that its constant approach has been to require very strong reasons for justifying restrictions on political speech (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).

 
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 10257/17

  The Court reiterates in this connection that its constant approach has been to require very strong reasons for justifying restrictions on political speech (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 10257/17

  Consequently, it falls to the Court to examine whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society, and specifically whether it was proportionate to the aim pursued (see, for example, Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

  MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 10257/17

  The Court has previously established that the press, as well as NGOs, exercise watchdog functions, and that the function of bloggers and popular users of social media may be also assimilated to that of "public watchdogs" as far as the protection afforded by Article 10 is concerned (see Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, §§ 165, 166, 168, ECHR 2016; and Falzon v. Malta, no. 45791/13, § 57, 20 March 2018).

• EGMR - 2091/22 (anhängig)

  TRNKA v. SLOVAKIA

  Having regard to the emphasis that the domestic courts placed on the protection of the claimant's reputation vis-à-vis the applicant's right to freedom of speech, have they in fact performed a balancing exercise between the competing interests according to the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention (see Ostanina v. Russia, no. 22169/11, § 23, 17 April 2018; Rebechenko v. Russia, no. 10257/17, § 29, 16 April 2019; and, mutatis mutandis, Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia v. Slovakia, no. 41262/05, § 109, 26 July 2011, with further references)?.