Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BOZHKOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 3316/04

  In addition, an award of damages for defamation must bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the injury to reputation suffered (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 49, Series A no. 316-B, and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 96, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 3316/04

  It begins by noting that while the use of criminal-law sanctions in defamation cases is not in itself disproportionate (see Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-II; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-XI; Dlugolecki v. Poland, no. 23806/03, § 47, 24 February 2009; and Saaristo and Others v. Finland, no. 184/06, § 69 in limine, 12 October 2010), the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are factors to be taken into account, because they must not be such as to dissuade the press from taking part in the discussion of matters of legitimate public concern (see CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re, cited above, § 111).
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  SCHARSACH ET NEWS VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 3316/04

  The Court considers that in view of the nature of the violation of Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant is entitled to recover the sums that he was ordered to pay in fines, damages and costs, plus interest (see Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 50, Series A no. 103, and Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 50, ECHR 2003-XI).

 
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 3316/04

  In addition, an award of damages for defamation must bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the injury to reputation suffered (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 49, Series A no. 316-B, and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 96, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 184/06

  SAARISTO AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 3316/04

  It begins by noting that while the use of criminal-law sanctions in defamation cases is not in itself disproportionate (see Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-II; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-XI; Dlugolecki v. Poland, no. 23806/03, § 47, 24 February 2009; and Saaristo and Others v. Finland, no. 184/06, § 69 in limine, 12 October 2010), the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are factors to be taken into account, because they must not be such as to dissuade the press from taking part in the discussion of matters of legitimate public concern (see CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re, cited above, § 111).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 3316/04

  News is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication, even for a short period, may well deprive it of all its value and interest (see Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 60, Series A no. 216, and Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 2), 26 November 1991, § 51, Series A no. 217).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 3316/04

  By reason of the "duties and responsibilities" inherent in the exercise of the freedom of expression, the safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see, among other authorities, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 3316/04

  While they treated that matter merely as a circumstance justifying a lower award of damages, the Court considers that, in view of the overall thrust of the article (see Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 48 in limine, Series A no. 236; Perna v. Italy [GC], no. 48898/99, § 47 in limine, ECHR 2003-V; and Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel v. Moldova, no. 42864/05, § 35, 27 November 2007), that element was equally relevant for the assessment of whether or not the applicant had acted as a responsible journalist.
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 3316/04

  By contrast, the nature of the allegation in the present case (that the four complainants would be dismissed for bribe-taking) made it very difficult, if not impossible, for the applicant to provide direct corroboration of it (compare with Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 65 in fine, Series A no. 239).
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 3316/04

  The determination whether this was so must be based on the following general principles emerging from the Court's case-law (see, among other authorities, CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 88-91, ECHR 2004-XI, with further references):.
• EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 38432/97

  THOMA v. LUXEMBOURG
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 510/04

  TØNSBERGS BLAD AS AND HAUKOM v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 42864/05

  TIMPUL INFO-MAGAZIN AND ANGHEL v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 37406/03

  DYUNDIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 25367/05

  FLUX v. MOLDOVA (No. 7)

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 08.02.2024 - C-633/22

  Real Madrid Club de Fútbol - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle …

  121 EGMR, 19. April 2011, Kasabova/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2011:0419JUD002238503, § 71), und EGMR, 19. April 2011, Bozhkov/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2011:0419JUD000331604, § 55).

  128 EGMR, 19. April 2011, Kasabova/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2011:0419JUD002238503, § 71), und EGMR, 19. April 2011, Bozhkov/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2011:0419JUD000331604, § 55).

  130 Vgl. EGMR, 19. April 2011, Kasabova/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2011:0419JUD002238503, § 71), und EGMR, 19. April 2011, Bozhkov/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2011:0419JUD000331604, § 55).

• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 47238/19

  ALMEIDA ARROJA v. PORTUGAL

  The domestic courts therefore exceeded the margin of appreciation afforded to them regarding limitations on debates of public interest, and there was no reasonable relationship of proportionality between, on the one hand, the restriction of the applicant's right to freedom of expression and, on the other hand, the legitimate aim pursued (see, mutatis mutandis, Bozhkov v. Bulgaria, no. 3316/04, § 55, 19 April 2011; Pais Pires de Lima, cited above, §§ 66-67; and SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação v. Portugal, no. 29856/13, § 69, 27 July 2021; see also, by contrast, Stângu and Scutelnicu v. Romania, no. 53899/00, § 56, 31 January 2006).
• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 78873/13

  FREITAS RANGEL v. PORTUGAL

  The Court also considers that sanctions of this severity may have a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of expression of persons called upon to participate in discussions of matters of general public interest and concerning institutions (compare Público - Comunicação Social, S.A. and Others v. Portugal, no. 39324/07, § 55, 7 December 2010; Bozhkov v. Bulgaria, no. 3316/04, § 55, 19 April 2011; Pinto Pinheiro Marques v. Portugal, no. 26671/09, § 46, 22 January 2015; Medipress-Sociedade Jornalística, Lda v. Portugal, no. 55442/12, § 45, 30 August 2016; and Pais Pires de Lima, cited above, §§ 66-67).

 
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 5126/05

  YORDANOVA AND TOSHEV v. BULGARIA

  Other factors - and the list is not exhaustive - may include the source of the information (see, for instance, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, cited above, §§ 68 and 72), the steps taken to verify it (see, for instance, Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, §§ 64-65, 14 February 2008; Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, §§ 64-65, 19 April 2011, and Bozhkov v. Bulgaria, no. 3316/04, §§ 47-50, 19 April 2011), and the urgency of the matter (see Bozhkov, cited above, § 48).
• EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 34496/19

  AVDZHIYSKI v. BULGARIA

  It has not been claimed that the applicant was not given a fair chance in the domestic proceedings to prove the veracity of his allegations; in particular, the Court observes that the defence of truth is provided for under Article 147 § 2 of the Criminal Code (see Bozhkov v. Bulgaria, no. 3316/04, § 28, 19 April 2011).
• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 42182/11

  TOLMACHEV v. RUSSIA

  In others, the Court has used a reference amount to put the award made in a particular defamation case into perspective - for example: an applicant's monthly income (see Steel and Morris, cited above, § 96; Koprivica v. Montenegro, no. 41158/09, §§ 72-73, 22 November 2011; Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, § 71, 19 April 2011; Tesic v. Serbia, nos. 4678/07 and 50591/12, § 65, 11 February 2014; and Cheltsova, cited above, § 85); a minimum monthly salary (see Bozhkov v. Bulgaria, no. 3316/04, § 55, 19 April 2011); an average monthly wage (see Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 56, 9 January 2007, and Morar v. Romania, no. 25217/06, § 70, 7 July 2015); the average income in a certain professional field (see Sorguç v. Turkey, no. 17089/03, § 37, 23 June 2009); or domestic courts" awards in other types of proceedings (see Narodni List D.D. v. Croatia, no. 2782/12, § 70, 8 November 2018).
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 31566/13

  TAVARES DE ALMEIDA FERNANDES AND ALMEIDA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL

  The Court further reiterates that the safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see Bozhkov v. Bulgaria, no. 3316/04, § 46, 19 April 2011).