Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2008,61173
EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02 (https://dejure.org/2008,61173)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.03.2008 - 15601/02 (https://dejure.org/2008,61173)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. März 2008 - 15601/02 (https://dejure.org/2008,61173)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,61173) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
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 ... (11)

  • EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 18597/13

    GRA STIFTUNG GEGEN RASSISMUS UND ANTISEMITISMUS v. SWITZERLAND

    For them, the limits of critical comment are wider as they are inevitably and knowingly exposed to public scrutiny and must therefore display a particularly high degree of tolerance (see Ayhan Erdogan v. Turkey, no. 39656/03, § 25, 13 January 2009, and Kulis v. Poland, no. 15601/02, § 47, 18 March 2008).
  • EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 39457/03

    SAYGILI AND FALAKAOGLU v. TURKEY

    The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, the following judgments: Sener v. Turkey, no. 26680/95, §§ 39-43, 18 July 2000, Ä°brahim Aksoy v. Turkey, nos. 28635/95, 30171/96 and 34535/97, §§ 51-53, 10 October 2000; Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 26, §§ 41-42, Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV, and Kulis v. Poland, no. 15601/02, §§ 36-41, 18 March 2008).

    The punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to the discussion of matters of public interest, and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so (see, for example, Kulis v. Poland, no. 15601/02, § 38, 18 March 2008).

  • EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 58781/13

    ARNARSON v. ICELAND

    The Court thus concludes that by publishing his allegation without confirmation on its veracity, the applicant could not have been acting in good faith, and thus in accordance with the standards of responsible journalism (see, for example, Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, §§ 62 and 64, ECHR 2001-III, Kulis v. Poland, no. 15601/02, § 38, 18 March 2008 and Bédat v. Switzerland, cited above, § 50).
  • EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 23806/03

    DLUGOLECKI v. POLAND

    It is true that, whilst an individual taking part in a public debate on a matter of general concern is required not to overstep certain limits as regards - in particular - respect for the reputation and rights of others, he or she is allowed to have recourse to a degree of exaggeration or even provocation, or in other words to make somewhat immoderate statements (see Kulis v. Poland, no. 15601/02, § 47, 18 March 2008).
  • EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 11976/03

    DEMIREL AND ATES (NO. 3) v. TURKEY

    The punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to the discussion of matters of public interest, and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so (see, for example, Kulis v. Poland, no. 15601/02, § 38, 18 March 2008).
  • EGMR, 22.06.2010 - 41029/06

    KURLOWICZ v. POLAND

    The Court finds that in the circumstances of the case there is a causal link between the violation found and the alleged pecuniary damage as long as the applicant referred to the amount which he was ordered to pay by the domestic courts (see Busuioc v. Moldova, no. 61513/00, § 101, 21 December 2004, and Kulis v. Poland, no. 15601/02, § 59, 18 March 2008).
  • EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 47881/11

    PRUNEA v. ROMANIA

    Accordingly, whilst a private individual unknown to the public may claim particular protection of his or her right to private life, the same is not true of public figures (see Minelli v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 14991/02, 14 June 2005, and Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 55, 30 March 2010) in respect of whom limits of critical comment are wider, as they are inevitably and knowingly exposed to public scrutiny and must therefore display a particularly high degree of tolerance (see Ayhan Erdogan v. Turkey, no. 39656/03, § 25, 13 January 2009, and Kuli?? v. Poland, no. 15601/02, § 47, 18 March 2008; see also Milisavljevic v. Serbia, no. 50123/06, §§ 32-34, 4 April 2017 and Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos.
  • EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 38991/02

    SAYGILI AND FALAKAOGLU v. TURKEY (No. 2)

    The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, the following judgments: Sener v. Turkey, no. 26680/95, §§ 39-43, 18 July 2000; Ä°brahim Aksoy v. Turkey, nos. 28635/95, 30171/96 and 34535/97, §§ 51-53, 10 October 2000; Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, §§ 41-42, Series A no. 103; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I; Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV; and Kulis v. Poland, no. 15601/02, §§ 36-41, 18 March 2008).
  • EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 48979/10

    ERGÜNDOGAN c. TURQUIE

    Elle estime à cet égard que, étant donné que H.B. était un personnage public dans le contexte du débat d'intérêt général décrit ci-dessus, les limites de la critique admissible étaient plus larges à son égard que pour un simple individu (Kulis c. Pologne, no 15601/02, § 47, 18 mars 2008).
  • EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 53139/11

    DO CARMO DE PORTUGAL E CASTRO CÂMARA v. PORTUGAL

    With regard in particular to the statements that A.S. was "a petty liar", the Court further notes that the case bears similarities to Kulís v. Poland (no. 15601/02, 18 March 2008), where the applicant had published an interview with a lawyer in which the latter had stated that a Deputy Speaker of the lower house of the Polish Parliament was a liar in the context of an investigation of a kidnapping; to Almeida Azevedo v. Portugal (no. 43924/02, 23 January 2007), where the applicant described a mayor as being a liar and a manipulator; and to Niskasaari and Otavamedia Oy v. Finland (no. 32297/10, 23 June 2015), where the applicant, a journalist, had been convicted for defamation for having criticised the work of a colleague by calling him a liar.
  • EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 39656/03

    AYHAN ERDOGAN v. TURKEY

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht