Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VERDENS GANG et AASE contre la NORVEGE

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VERDENS GANG and AASE v. NORWAY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 45710/99

  Nor is the Court satisfied that the newspaper took sufficient steps to fulfil its obligation to verify the truth of the factual allegation in question (see, for instance, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 26132/95

  BERGENS TIDENDE ET AUTRES c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 45710/99

  The Court notes that the present case raises certain issues of press freedom that are similar to those dealt with in the Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway judgment of 2 May 2000 (no. 26132/95, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 45710/99

  The High Court considered that the case differed from that determined by the Court in the Jersild v. Denmark judgment of 23 September 1994 (Series A no. 298), where the applicant journalist did not in any way identify himself with the impugned allegations.

• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 17224/11

  MEDZLIS ISLAMSKE ZAJEDNICE BRCKO AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Therefore they implicitly presented themselves as having direct access to that information (see Verdens Gang and Aase v. Norway (dec.), no. 45710/99, ECHR 2001-X; compare Thoma, cited above, § 64).
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 54145/10

  ERLA HLYNSDÓTTIR v. ICELAND (No. 3)

  Indeed, the rendering of an indictment in a media coverage after it has been read out at a trial hearing is a kind of situation where there may be special grounds for dispensing the press from its ordinary obligation to verify factual statements that are defamatory of private individuals (see Worm, cited above, § 55; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, cited above, §§ 66 and 68; Colombani and Others, cited above, § 65; and CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre, cited above, § 108), provided that the source has been clearly identified (Worm, cited above, § 55; see also McVicar cited above, § 84; Thoma, cited above, § 64; Verdens Gang and Aase v. Norway (dec.), no. 45710/99, ECHR 2001-X; Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom, cited above, § 95).
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 46443/09

  BJÖRK EIÐSDÓTTIR v. ICELAND

  The Court discerns no reason for doing so either, finding it sufficiently clear that the sub-heading merely reproduced Mrs Z's account and opinions (see Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 64, ECHR 2001-III; compare Verdens Gang and Aase v. Norway (dec.), no. 45710/99, ECHR 2001-X).

 
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 43380/10

  ERLA HLYNSDÓTTIR v. ICELAND

  The Court discerns no reason for doing so either, finding it sufficiently clear that the sub-heading merely reproduced Mr B's account and opinions (see Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 64, ECHR 2001-III; compare Verdens Gang and Aase v. Norway (dec.), no. 45710/99, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 69857/01

  KATAMADZE c. GEORGIE

  En l'espèce, elle attache de l'importance décisive au fait que la publication de la requérante ne s'inscrivait ni dans un débat quelconque d'un intérêt public légitime (cf., a contrario, Verdens Gang et Aase c. Norvège (déc.), no 45710/99, CEDH 2001-X ; Abeberry c. France (déc.), no 58729/00 ; 21 septembre 2004 ; Stangu c. Roumanie (déc.), no 57551/00, 9 novembre 2004), ni dans une polémique entre elle et ses confrères d'un autre journal (cf., Urbino Rodrigues c. Portugal, no 75088/01, § 29, 29 novembre 2005).
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 35090/07

  RINGIER AXEL SPRINGER SLOVAKIA, A.S. v. SLOVAKIA

  In conclusion, to the extent the remainder of the Article 10 complaint has been substantiated, the Court has found no indication that by their judgments the domestic courts overstepped the margin of appreciation accorded to them under Article 10 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Verdens Gang and Aase v. Norway (dec.), no. 45710/99, ECHR 2001-X, Lunde v. Norway (dec.), no. 38318/97, 13 February 2001 and Campmany and Lopez Galiacho Perona v. Spain (dec.), no. 54224/00, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 29413/05

  DILIPAK (III) c. TURQUIE

  En l'espèce, la Cour attache une importance décisive au fait que la publication du requérant ne s'inscrivait ni dans un débat quelconque d'un intérêt public légitime (a contrario, Verdens Gang et Aase c. Norvège (déc.), no 45710/99, CEDH 2001-X ; Stangu c. Roumanie (déc.), no 57551/00, 9 novembre 2004), ni dans une polémique entre lui et ses confrères d'un autre journal (Urbino Rodrigues c. Portugal, no 75088/01, § 29, 29 novembre 2005).
• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08

  ROBERTS AND ROBERTS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court agrees and considers it clear from the terms of the article itself, including "It [the letter written by D. and R.] explains...", "the letter alleges..." and "the letter complains..." that the journalist did not himself allege that the applicants were guilty of any offence but merely assisted in the further dissemination of the allegations by reporting them in his article (contrast and compare Verdens Gang and Aase v. Norway (dec.), no. 45710/99, ECHR 2001-X).