Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TORANZO GOMEZ v. SPAIN

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TORANZO GOMEZ v. SPAIN - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (3)

• lto.de (Kurzinformation)

  Spanien verurteilt: Ab wann eine Polizeimaßnahme "Folter" heißen darf

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Pressemitteilung)

  Arrêt Toranzo Gomez c. Espagne - accusation de torture contre la police ayant conduit à une condamnation pour diffamation

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Pressemitteilung)

  Judgment Toranzo Gomez v. Spain - torture accusation against police led to slander conviction

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  TORANZO GOMEZ v. SPAIN

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• StV 2020, 168 (Ls.)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 26922/14

  The general principles applicable to cases in which the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention has to be balanced against the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention were summarised by the Court's Grand Chamber in Med?¾lis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], (no 17224/11, § 77, 27 June 2017) and Perinçek (cited above) § 198, ECHR 2015 (extracts)), which overviewed the Court's case-law established in Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) ([GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 104-07, ECHR 2012) and Axel Springer AG v. Germany ([GC], no. 39954/08, §§ 85-88, 7 February 2012).
• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 26922/14

  As noted by the Grand Chamber in Perinçek v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 27510/08), these principles were recently restated in Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 16354/06, § 48, ECHR 2012) and Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 48876/08, § 100, ECHR 2013), and can be summarised in this way:.
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 42461/13

  KARÁCSONY ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 26922/14

  42461/13 and 44357/13, § 144, ECHR 2016 (extracts).

 
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 26922/14

  The Court also finds that no account was taken concerning whether the statements advocated the use of violence, or whether other means were available for replying to the allegations before resorting to criminal proceedings, which the Court has considered essential elements to be taken in consideration (see, Perinçek, cited above, §§ 204-08; Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, §§ 61, ECHR 1999-IV; and Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 46, Series A no. 236).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 26922/14

  Indeed, the Court considers that there is nothing in the case to suggest that the applicant's allegations were made otherwise than in good faith and in pursuit of the legitimate aim of debating a matter of public interest (see, mutatis mutandis, Ghiulfer Predescu v. Romania, no. 29751/09, § 59, 27 June 2017, and Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 84, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 26922/14

  The Court also finds that no account was taken concerning whether the statements advocated the use of violence, or whether other means were available for replying to the allegations before resorting to criminal proceedings, which the Court has considered essential elements to be taken in consideration (see, Perinçek, cited above, §§ 204-08; Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, §§ 61, ECHR 1999-IV; and Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 46, Series A no. 236).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 59330/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 26922/14

  Finally, the Court has also held that Article 8 could not be relied on in order to complain of a loss of reputation which was the foreseeable consequence of one's own actions such as, for example, the commission of a criminal offence (see Sidabras and D?¾iautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 49, ECHR 2004-VIII).
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 29751/09

  GHIULFER PREDESCU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 26922/14

  Indeed, the Court considers that there is nothing in the case to suggest that the applicant's allegations were made otherwise than in good faith and in pursuit of the legitimate aim of debating a matter of public interest (see, mutatis mutandis, Ghiulfer Predescu v. Romania, no. 29751/09, § 59, 27 June 2017, and Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 84, ECHR 2001-VIII).

• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 27925/21

  Pablo Hasél

  The Court has previously found that it was within the legitimate exercise of the freedom of expression to describe, at a press conference, the police's action against an applicant as torture, given the colloquial nature used by the applicant to criticise that action (see Toranzo Gomez v. Spain, no. 26922/14, §§ 58-63, 20 November 2018).