Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RAICHINOV v. BULGARIA

  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 partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 47579/99
• EGMR, 20.04.2006 - 47579/99

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94

  CEYLAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2006 - 47579/99

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that the dominant position which those in power occupy makes it necessary for them to display restraint in resorting to criminal proceedings, particularly where other means are available for replying to the unjustified criticisms of their adversaries (see, mutatis mutandis, Castells v. Spain, judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, pp. 23-24, § 46; and Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 29.02.2000 - 39293/98

  FUENTES BOBO c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2006 - 47579/99

  It should also be observed that the applicant's remark, while liable to be construed as a serious moral reproach, was apparently made in the course of an oral exchange and not in writing, after careful consideration (see Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, no. 39293/98, § 48, 29 February 2000; and, as an example to the contrary, De Diego Nafría v. Spain, no. 46833/99, § 41, 14 March 2002).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46833/99

  DE DIEGO NAFRIA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2006 - 47579/99

  It should also be observed that the applicant's remark, while liable to be construed as a serious moral reproach, was apparently made in the course of an oral exchange and not in writing, after careful consideration (see Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, no. 39293/98, § 48, 29 February 2000; and, as an example to the contrary, De Diego Nafría v. Spain, no. 46833/99, § 41, 14 March 2002).

 
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2006 - 47579/99

  Thus, no press or other form of publicity was involved (see, mutatis mutandis, Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 52 in limine, ECHR 2002-II; Yankov, cited above, §§ 139 and 141; and, as an example to the contrary, Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 79, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 28.10.2003 - 39657/98

  Meinungsfreiheit von Rechtsanwälten (Bedeutung der Rechtsanwälte für das …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2006 - 47579/99

  It is true that he did not lay himself open to public scrutiny and needed to enjoy confidence in conditions free of undue perturbation when on duty (see Janowski, cited above, § 33; and, mutatis mutandis, Steur v. the Netherlands, no. 39657/98, §§ 40 and 41, ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  SCHARSACH ET NEWS VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2006 - 47579/99

  The applicant's resulting sentence - a fine and a public reprimand -, while being in the lower range of the possible penalties, was still a sentence under criminal law, registered in the applicant's criminal record (see Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 32, ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 39084/97

  YANKOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2006 - 47579/99

  The applicant's remark obviously did not pose such a threat and did not hinder Mr S. in the performance of his official duties (see, mutatis mutandis, Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, § 142, ECHR 2003-XII).
• EKMR, 13.03.1986 - 11456/85

  PRINCE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2006 - 47579/99

  Another factor on which the Court places particular reliance is that the applicant was not subjected to a civil or disciplinary sanction, but instead to a criminal one (see, as examples to the contrary, P. v. the United Kingdom, no. 11456/85, Commission decision of 13 March 1986, Decisions and Reports 46, p. 222; Meister v. Germany, no. 30549/96, Commission decision of 10 April 1997, unreported; Fuentes Bobo, cited above; De Diego Nafría, cited above; Vides Aizsardzibas Klubs v. Latvia, no. 57829/00, 27 May 2004; and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, ECHR 2005-...).
• EKMR, 10.04.1997 - 30549/96

  MEISTER v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2006 - 47579/99

  Another factor on which the Court places particular reliance is that the applicant was not subjected to a civil or disciplinary sanction, but instead to a criminal one (see, as examples to the contrary, P. v. the United Kingdom, no. 11456/85, Commission decision of 13 March 1986, Decisions and Reports 46, p. 222; Meister v. Germany, no. 30549/96, Commission decision of 10 April 1997, unreported; Fuentes Bobo, cited above; De Diego Nafría, cited above; Vides Aizsardzibas Klubs v. Latvia, no. 57829/00, 27 May 2004; and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 25716/94

  JANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2006 - 47579/99

  In doing so, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and, moreover, that they based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 30, ECHR 1999-I, with further references).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 45130/06

  RUOKANEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Finally, the Court notes that in the instant case the first and second applicants were subjected to a criminal law sanction (for which, see for example Raichinov v. Bulgaria, no. 47579/99, § 50, 20 April 2006, and the case-law cited therein).

  However, it is also true that, in holding an interference with freedom of expression to have been disproportionate, the Court has on several occasions placed reliance on the fact that recourse could have been had to measures other than criminal sanctions, notably civil remedies (see, for example, Lehideux and Isorni v. France, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, §§ 51 and 57; Raichinov v. Bulgaria no. 47579/99, § 50, 20 April 2006).

• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 23806/03

  DLUGOLECKI v. POLAND

  Finally, the Court notes that the criminal proceedings in the present case had their origin in a bill of indictment lodged by the politician himself and not by a public prosecutor (see, a contrario, Raichinov v. Bulgaria, no. 47579/99, § 50, 20 April 2006) and that they resulted in conditional discontinuation of these proceedings.

  This is, of course correct, although it is also correct that, in holding an interference with freedom of expression to have been disproportionate, the Court has frequently placed emphasis on the fact that recourse could have been had to means other than criminal sanctions (see, for example, Lehideux and Isorni v. France, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII, §§ 51 and 57; Raichinov v. Bulgaria, no. 47579/99, § 50, 20 April 2006).

• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  MAKARENKO v. RUSSIA

  It should also be observed that the proceedings were instituted on the initiative of Mr M., not by a State authority (see, by contrast, Raichinov v. Bulgaria, no. 47579/99, § 50 in fine, 20 April 2006).

 
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

  RUMYANA IVANOVA v. BULGARIA

  It should also be observed that the proceedings were instituted on the initiative of Mr M. D., not by a State authority (see, by contrast, Raichinov v. Bulgaria, no. 47579/99, § 50 in fine, 20 April 2006), and that, though they started as criminal, they ended with a mere administrative punishment (see paragraphs 26 and 34 above).
• EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02

  KULIS v. POLAND

  It reiterates that the dominant position which those in power occupy makes it necessary for them to display restraint in resorting to criminal proceedings, particularly where other means are available for replying to the alleged criticisms of their adversaries (see, mutatis mutandis, Castells v. Spain, judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, pp. 23-24, § 46; Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-IV; and Raichinov v. Bulgaria, no. 47579/99, § 51, 20 April 2006).
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 13801/07

  MARIN KOSTOV v. BULGARIA

  It must determine whether the interference in issue was "proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued" and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient" (see, among many other authorities, Janowski v. Poland [GC], cited above, § 30, and Raichinov v. Bulgaria, no. 47579/99, § 47, 20 April 2006).