Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GUERRA AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 2, Art. 41, Art. 26 MRK
  Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) Violation of Art. 8 Not necessary to examine Art. 2 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses - claim dismissed (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GUERRA ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 2, Art. 41, Art. 26 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 8 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 2 Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement) Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Frais et dépens - demande rejetée (französisch)

• lda.brandenburg.de

  Allgemein zugängliche Quelle

• fragdenstaat.de

  Allgemein zugängliche Quelle

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
• lda.brandenburg.de (Kurzinformation)

  Allgemein zugängliche Quelle

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 06.07.1995 - 14967/89
• EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 14967/89

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 116/1996/735/932

  Guerra ./. Italien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 14967/89

  (116/1996/735/932).

  Notes by the Registrar 1. The case is numbered 116/1996/735/932.

• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 14967/89

  A complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on (see the Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 13, § 29).
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 14967/89

  In cases concerning restrictions on freedom of the press it has on a number of occasions recognised that the public has a right to receive information as a corollary of the specific function of journalists, which is to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest (see, among other authorities, the Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, p. 30, § 59 (b), and the Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, p. 27, § 63).

 
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 14967/89

  In cases concerning restrictions on freedom of the press it has on a number of occasions recognised that the public has a right to receive information as a corollary of the specific function of journalists, which is to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest (see, among other authorities, the Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, p. 30, § 59 (b), and the Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, p. 27, § 63).
• EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87

  DEMICOLI v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 14967/89

  It reiterates that it is for the State to choose the means to be used in its domestic legal system in order to comply with the provisions of the Convention or to redress the situation that has given rise to the violation of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, the following judgments: Zanghì v. Italy of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-C, p. 48, § 26, Demicoli v. Malta of 27 August 1991, Series A no. 210, p. 19, § 45, and Yaci and Sargin v. Turkey of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 24, § 81).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 14967/89

  However, although the object of Article 8 is essentially that of protecting the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities, it does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference: in addition to this primarily negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in effective respect for private or family life (see the Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 17, § 32).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 14967/89

  In the present case it need only be ascertained whether the national authorities took the necessary steps to ensure effective protection of the applicants' right to respect for their private and family life as guaranteed by Article 8 (see the Lpez Ostra v. Spain judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, p. 55, § 55).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 14967/89

  It reiterates that it is for the State to choose the means to be used in its domestic legal system in order to comply with the provisions of the Convention or to redress the situation that has given rise to the violation of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, the following judgments: Zanghì v. Italy of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-C, p. 48, § 26, Demicoli v. Malta of 27 August 1991, Series A no. 210, p. 19, § 45, and Yaci and Sargin v. Turkey of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 24, § 81).
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 14967/89

  The Court reiterates that freedom to receive information, referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention, "basically prohibits a government from restricting a person from receiving information that others wish or may be willing to impart to him" (see the Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 29, § 74).
• EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 12750/87

  PHILIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 14967/89

  Within the compass thus delimited, the Court may deal with any issue of fact or law that arises during the proceedings before it (see, among many other authorities, the Philis v. Greece judgment of 27 August 1991, Series A no. 209, p. 19, § 56).