Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TURHAN v. TURKEY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 48176/99
• EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 48176/99

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 48176/99

  The Court reiterates its well-established case-law, whereby the test of necessity in a democratic society requires the Court to determine whether the "interference" complained of corresponded to a "pressing social need", whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify it are relevant and sufficient (see Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 38, § 62).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 48176/99

  The requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is impossible to fulfil and infringes freedom of opinion itself, which is a fundamental part of the right secured by Article 10 (see, for example, Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 28, § 46, and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, p. 27, § 63).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 48176/99

  The necessity of a link between a value judgment and its supporting facts may vary from case to case according to the specific circumstances (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 86, ECHR 2001-VIII.).

• EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 74002/13

  LIBICKI v. POLAND

  In that connection, the Court reiterates that even though the truth of a value judgment is not susceptible of proof, a value judgment may be considered excessive where there is no factual basis to support it (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 43, ECHR 2001-II, and Turhan v. Turkey, no. 48176/99, § 24, 19 May 2005).
• EGMR, 14.05.2019 - 48174/11

  NIEMCZYK v. POLAND

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that even though the truth of a value judgment is not susceptible of proof, a value judgment may be considered excessive where there is no factual basis to support it (see Turhan v. Turkey, no. 48176/99, § 24, 19 May 2005, and Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 43, ECHR 2001-II).