Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TELE 1 PRIVATFERNSEH v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 as regards the first period No violation of Art. 10 as regards the second period Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (3)

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
• IRIS Merlin (Kurzinformation)

  Meinungsfreiheit

• beck.de (Leitsatz)

  Verstoß gegen Art. 10 EMRK im österr. Rundfunkrecht

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.05.1999 - 32240/96
• EGMR, 21.09.2000 - 32240/96

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

• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13914/88

  INFORMATIONSVEREIN LENTIA AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2000 - 32240/96

  Referring to the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria (of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 276), the applicant argued that the Ministry's decision was in breach of its right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention.

  This may lead to interferences whose aim will be legitimate under the third sentence of paragraph 1, even though they do not correspond to any of the aims set out in paragraph 2. The compatibility of such interferences with the Convention must nevertheless be assessed in the light of the other requirements of paragraph 2 (see the Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 276, p. 14, § 32).

• EGMR, 25.03.1985 - 8734/79

  Barthold ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2000 - 32240/96

  Further, the Court recalls that it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply the domestic law (see the Barthold v. Germany judgment of 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, p. 22, § 48).

• EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 40234/16

  AMIS TELEKOM DOO v. SERBIA

  The Court has already held that the existence of a viable alternative in organising broadcasting could render the restrictions imposed by law in this field compatible with Article 10 of the Convention (see Tele 1 Privatfernsehgesellschaft mbH v. Austria, no. 32240/96, § 40, 21 September 2000 concerning the impossibility of obtaining a licence for private terrestrial broadcasting).