Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 49418/99 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,26765) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
HRICO v. SLOVAKIA
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award (englisch) - Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(englisch)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 16.09.2003 - 49418/99
- EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 49418/99
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74
SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 49418/99
The Court therefore has to examine in turn whether such interference was "prescribed by law", whether it had an aim or aims that is or are legitimate under Article 10 § 2 and whether it was "necessary in a democratic society" for the aforesaid aim or aims (see Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, § 45). - EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89
JERSILD v. DENMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 49418/99
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 Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 23, § 31). - EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90
PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 49418/99
It should therefore be protected against unfounded attacks, especially in view of the fact that judges are subject to a duty of discretion that precludes them from replying (see the Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313, § 34).
- EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95
FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 49418/99
The Court also notes that the judicial proceedings in which the criticised judge had been involved and which were commented upon in the articles under consideration related to an issue of general concern on which a political debate existed (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 81, ECHR 2001-VIII). - EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95
SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 49418/99
(g) There is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on debate on questions of public interest (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV). - EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11508/85
BARFOD c. DANEMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 49418/99
In particular, 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 the Barfod v. Denmark judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149, § 28).