Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SIREDZHUK v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 4260/04

  ANDRUSHKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 16901/03

  Nevertheless, it fails to see the pertinence of the forum chosen by the applicant for expressing his critical views and does not consider that the context in which they were published warranted the application of the same "high tolerance" standard appropriate for media cases such as Lingens (cited above, §§ 41-42), or for other cases involving expression in the context of pluralistic debate and exchange of opinions on matters of serious public concern (see Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, §§ 41 and 45-46, 14 October 2010 and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 89, ECHR 2005-II).

  The Court next observes that it has not been argued in the present case that the applicant was precluded from submitting any evidence he deemed necessary in support of the veracity of the challenged factual statements in the domestic proceedings (compare and contrast with Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 55, 14 October 2010) or, more generally, that the courts made their decisions without analysing some material important for contextual assessment of the applicant's publication (compare and contrast with Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 3), no. 37986/09, §§ 80 and 84, 7 January 2014).

• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 31457/96

  NEWS VERLAGS GmbH & Co. KG v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 16901/03

  The Court's task in exercising its supervisory function is not to take the place of the competent domestic courts, but rather to review whether the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and whether in this context, they relied on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see, among other authorities, Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I; News Verlags GmbH & Co. KG v. Austria, no. 31457/96, § 52, ECHR 2000-I; and Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a. s. v. Slovakia, no. 41262/05, §§ 100 and 106, 26 July 2011).
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 51744/99

  KWIECIEN v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 16901/03

  In addition, the fairness of the proceedings, the procedural guarantees afforded and the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference (see Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 46, 9 January 2007).

 
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 16901/03

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 obliges the courts to give reasons for their judgments, but cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 61, Series A no. 288).
• EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 28255/07

  CUMHURIYET VAKFI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 16901/03

  In this connection, the Court would reiterate the importance of an obligation to provide reasons for decisions concerning a restriction of the right to freedom of expression, which offers an important procedural safeguard against arbitrary interferences with this right (see, mutatis mutandis, Boldea, cited above, § 61; Nur Radyo ve Televizyon Yayinciligi A.S. v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 42284/05, §§ 49-50, 12 October 2010; Cumhuriyet Vakfi and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, §§ 67-68, 8 October 2013; and Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 21666/09, § 53, 7 January 2014).
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 16901/03

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that the test of necessity requires it to determine whether the interference 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 were relevant and sufficient (see, among many other authorities, CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 88 and 90 ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 42284/05

  NUR RADYO VE TELEVIZYON YAYINCILIGI A.S. c. TURQUIE (n° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 16901/03

  In this connection, the Court would reiterate the importance of an obligation to provide reasons for decisions concerning a restriction of the right to freedom of expression, which offers an important procedural safeguard against arbitrary interferences with this right (see, mutatis mutandis, Boldea, cited above, § 61; Nur Radyo ve Televizyon Yayinciligi A.S. v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 42284/05, §§ 49-50, 12 October 2010; Cumhuriyet Vakfi and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, §§ 67-68, 8 October 2013; and Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 21666/09, § 53, 7 January 2014).
• EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 41029/05

  BURGAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 16901/03

  Moreover, none of the judgments given by the domestic courts in the applicant's case included express language indicating that they had acknowledged the existence of the conflicting rights to reputation and freedom of expression in the case at issue, which required striking a fair balance between them (see, e.g., Aksu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 4149/04; and 41029/05, § 66, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 16901/03

  The Court's task in exercising its supervisory function is not to take the place of the competent domestic courts, but rather to review whether the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and whether in this context, they relied on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see, among other authorities, Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I; News Verlags GmbH & Co. KG v. Austria, no. 31457/96, § 52, ECHR 2000-I; and Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a. s. v. Slovakia, no. 41262/05, §§ 100 and 106, 26 July 2011).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 16901/03

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 21666/09

  RINGIER AXEL SPRINGER SLOVAKIA, A.S. v. SLOVAKIA (No. 2)