Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EDITORIAL BOARD OF GRIVNA NEWSPAPER v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  REDAKTSIYA GAZETY GRIVNA, PP v. UKRAINE and 1 other application

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

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

• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 41214/08

  Moreover, a clear distinction must be made between criticism and insult and the latter may, in principle, justify sanctions (see Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06 and 3 others, § 67, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 41214/08

  In its judgments in Lingens v. Austria (8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 10) and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1) (23 May 1991, § 63, Series A no. 204), the Court drew a distinction between statements of fact and value judgments.
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64

  Matznetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 41214/08

  In its judgments in Lingens v. Austria (8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 10) and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1) (23 May 1991, § 63, Series A no. 204), the Court drew a distinction between statements of fact and value judgments.

 
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 23954/10

  Zur Meinungsfreiheit in Ungarn

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 41214/08

  For the Court, style constitutes part of the communication as the form of expression and is as such protected together with the content of the expression (see Uj v. Hungary, no. 23954/10, § 20, 19 July 2011).
• EGMR, 06.03.2018 - 10644/08

  MIKHAYLOVA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 41214/08

  The relevant principles of the Court's case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality were restated in Morice v. France ([GC], no. 29369/10, §§ 73-78, ECHR 2015, with further references) and summarised in Mikhaylova v. Ukraine (no. 10644/08, § 56, 6 March 2018).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 25716/94

  JANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 41214/08

  Protection of the rights guaranteed by Article 8 as well as protection of public servants from offensive attacks which were calculated to affect them in the performance of their duties were legitimate interests recognised in the Court's case-law (citing Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 31, ECHR 2004-II, and Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999-I, respectively).

• EGMR, 17.12.2020 - 66994/14

  CROATIAN GOLF FEDERATION v. CROATIA

  The Court also recalls that it has awarded non-pecuniary damage to juristic persons in cases in which it had found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of impartiality (see Editorial Board of Grivna Newspaper v. Ukraine, no. 41214/08, § 138, 16 April 2019, and Cosmos Maritime Trading and Shipping Agency v. Ukraine, no. 53427/09, § 104, 27 June 2019).