Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MARCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 10 Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 4063/04
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 4063/04

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 4063/04

  It further notes that in criminal matters the provision of full, detailed information concerning the charges against a defendant, and consequently the legal characterisation that the court might adopt in the matter, is an essential prerequisite for ensuring that the proceedings are fair (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 52, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95

  CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 4063/04

  Notwithstanding the particular role played by the applicant in his capacity as union representative, as well as that his statements, which related to official conduct of a public employee, were as such a matter of public concern, the Court finds that he had a duty to react within limits fixed, inter alia, in the interest of "protecting the reputation or rights of others", including the presumption of innocence (see Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 4063/04

  It remains to be determined whether this interference was "necessary in a democratic society" or whether, in the circumstances of the present case, a fair balance was struck between the protection of the applicant's freedom of expression and Mrs P."s reputation, a right which, as an aspect of private life, is protected by Article 8 of the Convention (see CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 90-91, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 65518/01

  SALOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 4063/04

  Such a sanction, by its very nature, will inevitably have a chilling effect on public discussion, and the notion that the applicant's sentence was in fact suspended does not alter that conclusion particularly as the conviction itself was not expunged (see, mutatis mutandis, CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re, cited above, § 116 and Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, § 115, ECHR 2005-VIII (extracts)).

• EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 28274/08

  Heinisch ./. Deutschland - Verletzung der Meinungsfreiheit bei Kündigung eines …

  Dies gilt insbesondere dann, wenn dem betroffenen Beschäftigten oder Beamten als einziger Person oder als Teil einer kleinen Personengruppe die Umstände am Arbeitsplatz bekannt sind und er deshalb am besten in der Lage ist, im Interesse der Allgemeinheit zu handeln und den Arbeitgeber oder die Öffentlichkeit auf Missstände hinzuweisen (siehe Guja ./. Moldau [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 14277/04, Rdnr. 72, ECHR 2008­...., und Marchenko ./. Ukraine, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 4063/04, Rdnr. 46, 19. Februar 2009).