Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ERLA HLYNSDÓTTIR v. ICELAND (No. 2)

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Erla Hlynsdottir v. Iceland

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ERLA HLYNSDOTTIR (II) v. ICELAND

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

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (21)

• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  40660/08 and 60641/08, 7 February 2012, § 102, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, §§ 59 and 62, ECHR 1999-III; Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, § 82, 1 March 2007, with further references; and Björk Eiðsdóttir, cited above, § 65).".
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  However, the Court's task is not to take the place of the domestic courts but rather to review under Article 10 the decisions they have taken (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I; and Pedersen and Baadsgaard, cited above, § 69).
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  The Court is therefore empowered to give the final ruling on whether a "restriction" is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 (see, among many other authorities, Perna, cited above, § 39; Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 56, ECHR 2001 VIII; and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 68, ECHR 2004-XI).

 
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  As set forth in paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, among other authorities, Jersild, cited above, p. 23-24, § 31; Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 30, ECHR 1999-I; and Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  As the Court has previously held, even where a statement amounts to a value judgment, the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether there exists a sufficient factual basis for the impugned statement, since even a value judgment without any factual basis to support it may be excessive (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 43, ECHR 2001-II; and Ferihumer v. Austria, no. 30547/03, § 24, 1 February 2007; see also De Haes and Gijsels, cited above, § 47; and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 2), 1 July 1997, § 33, Reports 1997-IV).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 510/04

  TØNSBERGS BLAD AS AND HAUKOM v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  40660/08 and 60641/08, 7 February 2012, § 102, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, §§ 59 and 62, ECHR 1999-III; Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, § 82, 1 March 2007, with further references; and Björk Eiðsdóttir, cited above, § 65).".
• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 34147/06

  POLANCO TORRES ET MOVILLA POLANCO c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  The Court further reiterates that the right to protection of reputation is a right which is protected by Article 8 of the Convention as part of the right to respect for private life (see Chauvy and Others, cited above, § 70; CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 91, ECHR 2004-XI; Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, § 35, 15 November 2007; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, § 40, 21 September 2010; and Axel Springer AG v. Germany ([GC], no. 39954/08, § 83, 7 February 2012).
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 28070/06

  A. v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  In order for Article 8 to come into play, an attack on a person's reputation must attain a certain level of seriousness and in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life (see Axel Springer AG and Björk Eiðsdóttir, § 64, both cited above; and also A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009; and Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos.
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 30547/03

  FERIHUMER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  As the Court has previously held, even where a statement amounts to a value judgment, the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether there exists a sufficient factual basis for the impugned statement, since even a value judgment without any factual basis to support it may be excessive (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 43, ECHR 2001-II; and Ferihumer v. Austria, no. 30547/03, § 24, 1 February 2007; see also De Haes and Gijsels, cited above, § 47; and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 2), 1 July 1997, § 33, Reports 1997-IV).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 55480/00

  SIDABRAS ET DZIAUTAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  55480/00 and 59330/00, § 49, ECHR 2004-VIII).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 64915/01

  CHAUVY AND OTHERS v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 39954/08

  Axel Springer AG in Art. 10 EMRK (Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung) verletzt durch …
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  SCHARSACH ET NEWS VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 26132/95

  BERGENS TIDENDE ET AUTRES c. NORVEGE
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

• EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 22636/19

  Oben-Ohne Protest in katholischer Kirche: Bewährungsstrafe gegen Aktivistin …

  45. Pour évaluer la pertinence et la suffisance des conclusions retenues par les juridictions nationales, la Cour, conformément au principe de subsidiarité, prend en considération la manière dont ces dernières ont effectué la mise en balance des intérêts contradictoires en jeu à la lumière de sa jurisprudence bien établie en la matière (voir Erla Hlynsdottir c. Islande (no 2), no 54125/10, § 54, 21 octobre 2014, Ergündoan c. Turquie, no 48979/10, § 24, 17 avril 2018).
• EGMR, 12.03.2024 - 2156/16

  UNGUR v. ROMANIA

  While the existence of facts can be demonstrated, the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof (see Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 103; Erla HlynsdÏŒttir v. Iceland (no. 2), no. 54125/10, § 66, 21 October 2014).
• EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 32368/19

  DANES AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  While the existence of facts can be demonstrated, the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof (see Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 103; Erla HlynsdÏŒttir v. Iceland (no. 2), no. 54125/10, § 66, 21 October 2014).
• EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 48979/10

  ERGÜNDOGAN c. TURQUIE

  Pour évaluer la pertinence et la suffisance des conclusions des juridictions nationales, la Cour, conformément au principe de subsidiarité, prend en considération la manière dont ces dernières ont effectué la mise en balance des intérêts contradictoires en jeu à la lumière de sa jurisprudence bien établie en la matière (voir Erla Hlynsdottir c. Islande (no 2), no 54125/10, § 54, 21 octobre 2014).
• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 6875/05

  SAYGILI AND KARATAS v. TURKEY

  In assessing the relevance and sufficiency of the national courts" findings, the Court, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, takes into account the extent to which the former balanced the conflicting rights implicated in the case, in the light of the Court's established case-law in this area (see Erla Hlynsdottir v. Iceland (no. 2), no. 54125/10, § 54, 21 October 2014).