Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANIMAL DEFENDERS INTERNATIONAL c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  Non-violation de l'article 10 - Liberté d'expression-Générale (Article 10-1 - Liberté d'expression) (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANIMAL DEFENDERS INTERNATIONAL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANIMAL DEFENDERS INTERNATIONAL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - [Deutsche Übersetzung] by the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (ÖIM)

  [DEU] No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (3)

• internet-law.de (Kurzinformation)

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
• juraforum.de (Kurzinformation)

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung in Großbritannien zulässig

Besprechungen u.ä. (2)

• verfassungsblog.de (Entscheidungsanmerkung)

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung: Straßburg will keinen Ärger mit Westminster

• lehofer.at (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  Animal Defenders - Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung kein Verstoß gegen Art 10 EMRK - Abkehr von VgT?

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Animal Defenders International c. United Kingdom

  [07.03.2012]

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• NVwZ 2015, 1197

Wird zitiert von ... (122)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 44179/98

  MURPHY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Both judges doubted the relevance of Murphy v. Ireland (no. 44179/98, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)): it did not concern political advertising and they were not convinced by the observation therein that the margin of appreciation for restrictions on political advertising might be narrower than those on religious advertising.

  The "somewhat wider margin of appreciation" referred to in TV Vest (cited above) was relevant only insofar as the State sought to rely upon special features of its national situation which peculiarly justified the restriction (as in Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)) and that was not the situation in the present case.

  Whether or not audio-visual has a wider meaning than television broadcasting as such, it is clear from cases such as Jersild v. Denmark (judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A, no. 298) and Murphy v. Ireland (no. 44179/98, ECHR 2003 IX (extracts) that television broadcasting has consistently been treated by the Court, as well as by the legislature in the present case, as having a particularly powerful influence which may require special provisions of control.

  In Murphy v. Ireland (no. 44179/98, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)) the general ban (on advertisements directed to a religious end) was held to be justified because of past experience of unrest in the context of a highly divisive issue in Irish society, namely religious beliefs (§ 73).

  The quality of the parliamentary and judicial review conducted at national level is also of importance, including to the application of the relevant margin of appreciation (see Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 128, ECHR 2003-VIII; Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, § 73, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, §§ 78-80, ECHR 2005-IX; Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 86, ECHR 2007-I; Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 83, ECHR 2007-V).

• EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 24699/94

  VgT VEREIN GEGEN TIERFABRIKEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Both judges rejected reliance on VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland (no. 24699/94, ECHR 2001-VI) which they found turned on its facts.

  During the resulting consultation period the Court delivered its judgment in Vgt Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland (no. 24699/94, ECHR 2001-VI).

  The Court accepts that this corresponds to the legitimate aim of protecting the "rights of others" to which the second paragraph of Article 10 refers (VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, § 62, ECHR 2001-VI; and TV Vest AS and Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway, no. 21132/05, § 78, ECHR 2008 (extracts)).

  Secondly, as in the VgT and TV Vest cases (VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, ECHR 2001 VI; and TV Vest AS and Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway, no. 21132/05, 11 December 2008), the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression stemmed not from a decision or exercise of discretion of a court or executive authority but from a statutory prohibition applicable to all forms of political advertising.

  We are particularly struck by the fact that when one compares the outcome in this case with the outcome in the case of VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland (no. 24699/94, ECHR 2001-VI) the almost inescapable conclusion must be that an essentially identical "general prohibition" on "political advertising" - sections 321(2) and (3) of the 2003 Act in this case and sections 18 and 15 of the Federal Radio and Television Act and the Radio and Television Ordinance respectively in VgT - is not necessary in Swiss democratic society, but is proportionate and a fortiori necessary in the democratic society of the United Kingdom.

• EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09

  CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  The Court also recalls the principles concerning pluralism in the audiovisual media set out recently in Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and Di Stefano v. Italy ([GC], no. 38433/09, ECHR 2012):.

  A situation whereby a powerful economic or political group in society is permitted to obtain a position of dominance over the audiovisual media and thereby exercise pressure on broadcasters and eventually curtail their editorial freedom undermines the fundamental role of freedom of expression in a democratic society as enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention, in particular where it serves to impart information and ideas of general interest, which the public is moreover entitled to receive (see VgT (cited above), §§ 73 and 75, and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 133, ECHR 2012).

  In spite of the adoption in 2001 of the VgT judgment, which the relevant Minister and the majority of the parliamentary bodies recognised as indicating that the prohibition was likely at a subsequent date to be considered incompatible with the Convention, and in spite of the increasing exceptional nature of the contested prohibition in comparison to the rules applied in other Contracting States, the Government were not able to refer to any expert report which examined whether there existed other practical solutions enabling both the scope of the prohibition to be reduced and its objectives to be conserved (see Hatton and Others, cited above, § 128), which consisted, in particular, of guaranteeing genuine pluralism (Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 129-134, ECHR 2012).

 
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 21132/05

  TV Vest AS & Rogaland Pensjonistparti ./. Norwegen

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  The Court accepts that this corresponds to the legitimate aim of protecting the "rights of others" to which the second paragraph of Article 10 refers (VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, § 62, ECHR 2001-VI; and TV Vest AS and Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway, no. 21132/05, § 78, ECHR 2008 (extracts)).

  Secondly, as in the VgT and TV Vest cases (VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, ECHR 2001 VI; and TV Vest AS and Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway, no. 21132/05, 11 December 2008), the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression stemmed not from a decision or exercise of discretion of a court or executive authority but from a statutory prohibition applicable to all forms of political advertising.

  It follows, as the judgment points out (paragraph 109), that the more convincing the general justifications for the general measure are, the less importance the Court will attach to its impact in the particular case under examination (see, for example, Murphy, cited above, and TV Vest AS and Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway, no. 21132/05, ECHR 2008 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Contrary to the applicant's submission, a general measure is to be distinguished from a prior restraint imposed on an individual act of expression (Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 60, Series A no. 216).

  To conclude on this point, the fact that a ban originates in a general measure does not exempt that measure from a full analysis as to its compatibility with the requirements of Article 10 § 2. In the context of general prohibitive measures which border upon prior restraint (see Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 60, Series A no. 216), the standards established in the context of freedom of demonstration apply also to the instant case: "Only if the disadvantage of such processions being caught by the ban is clearly outweighed by the security considerations justifying the issue of the ban, and if there is no possibility of avoiding such undesirable side effects of the ban by a narrow circumscription of its scope in terms of territorial application and duration, can the ban be regarded as being necessary within the meaning of Article 11(2) of the Convention" (see Christians against Racism and Fascism, already cited).

• EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 26935/05

  Société de Conception de Presse et d’Edition et Ponson ./. France (franz.)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  It is recalled that a lack of a relevant consensus amongst Contracting States could speak in favour of allowing a somewhat wider margin of appreciation than that normally afforded to restrictions on expression on matters of public interest (Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], § 81 and TV Vest, § 67, both cited above, as well as Société de conception de presse et d'édition and Ponson v. France, no. 26935/05, §§ 57 and 63, 5 March 2009).

  Likewise, in Société de Conception de Presse et d'Édition and Ponson v. France (no. 26935/05, 5 March 2009) the restriction - a general legislative ban - was found proportionate to the purpose, but again the legislative origins of the ban were not a relevant consideration; what was relevant was the uncontested European consensus on a general ban in respect of tobacco advertisements (a matter, in any case, involving ab initio a lower level of scrutiny and a wider margin of appreciation because of the nature of the right involved).

• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  The necessity for a general measure has been examined by the Court in a variety of contexts such as economic and social policy (James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98; Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, Series A no. 169; and Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 123, ECHR 2003-VIII) and welfare and pensions (Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 65731/01, ECHR 2006-VI; Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, nos.

  However, in determining the proportionality of a general measure, it may be useful to assess the legislative choices underlying it (see, mutatis mutandis, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 36, Series A no. 98).

• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  It has also been examined in the context of electoral laws (Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], cited above); prisoner voting (Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, ECHR 2005-IX; and Scoppola v. Italy (no. 3) [GC], no. 126/05, 22 May 2012); artificial insemination for prisoners (Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, §§ 79-85, ECHR 2007-V); the destruction of frozen embryos (Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, ECHR 2007-I); and assisted suicide (Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III); as well as in the context of a prohibition on religious advertising (the above-cited case of Murphy v. Ireland).

  As to Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III) the case concerned a right - the right to die - whose existence was contested, and it was in this context that the Court held that it was "primarily for States to assess the risk and the likely incidence of abuse if the general prohibition on assisted suicides were relaxed or if exceptions were to be created" (at § 74).

• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 44306/98

  APPLEBY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  The paper compared Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment (no. 44306/98, ECHR 2003-VI), which emphasised the value of access to other media, and the above-cited Murphy case which did not accept arguments based on VgT.

  The Court notes, in this respect, the other media which remain open to the present applicant and it recalls that access to alternative media is key to the proportionality of a restriction on access to other potentially useful media (Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44306/98, § 48, ECHR 2003-VI; and Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland, cited above, §§ 73-75).

• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  That the prohibition was confined to the broadcast media only was, as Ousley J had found, explained by the particular pervasiveness and potency of television and radio, a factor recognised by this Court in Jersild v. Denmark (23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298) and in Murphy although he noted that the VgT judgment appeared to discount the point.

  This protection of Article 10 extends not only to the substance of the ideas and information expressed but also to the form in which they are conveyed (Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298).

• EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 30158/06

  DOYLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 42949/98

  RUNKEE AND WHITE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 27.09.1990 - 10843/84

  COSSEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13914/88

  INFORMATIONSVEREIN LENTIA AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10522/83

  Mellacher u.a. ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• EGMR, 08.04.2021 - 47621/13

  Impfpflicht in Tschechien: Impflicht für Kinder ist keine …

  The Court has also sometimes expressed the opposite view (see Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 110, ECHR 2013 (extracts):.
• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 64569/09

  Betreiber haftet für Nutzerkommentare

  De plus, comme la Cour l'a dit dans l'arrêt Animal Defenders International c. Royaume-Uni ([GC] no 48876/08, § 108, CEDH 2013):.
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 27510/08

  Leugnung des Völkermords an Armeniern von Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt

  As noted by the Chamber, they 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, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

  MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY

  The Court has accepted that when an NGO draws attention to matters of public interest, it is exercising a public watchdog role of similar importance to that of the press (see Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 103, ECHR 2013 (extracts)) and may be characterised as a social "watchdog" warranting similar protection under the Convention as that afforded to the press (ibid.; Társaság, cited above, § 27; and Youth Initiative for Human Rights, cited above, § 20).
• EGMR, 26.11.2015 - 3690/10

  Meinungsfreiheit: Erfolg für Abtreibungsgegner

  Ein weiterer Grundsatz, der in der ständigen Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs stets betont wird, ist, dass es nach Artikel 10 der Konvention wenig Raum für Einschränkungen der politischen Redefreiheit oder der Debatte über Angelegenheiten des öffentlichen Interesses gibt (…siehe u. a. Wingrove./. Vereinigtes Königreich, 25. November 1996, Rdnr. 58, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V;… Ceylan./. Türkei [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 23556/94, Rdnr. 34, ECHR 1999-IV; und Animal Defenders International./. Vereinigtes Königreich [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 48876/08, Rdnr. 102, ECHR 2013 (Auszüge)).
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 931/13

  SATAKUNNAN MARKKINAPÖRSSI OY AND SATAMEDIA OY v. FINLAND

  When assessing the margin of appreciation in a case such as this, as well as the proportionality of the impugned interference and the Finnish regime pursuant to which it was adopted, the Court must also assess the legislative choices which lay behind it and, in that context, the quality of the parliamentary and judicial review of the necessity of that legislation and the measures adopted on that basis which interfere with freedom of expression (see, in this regard, Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, §§ 108 and 110, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).

  This Court has previously attached great importance to the quality of parliamentary review of the necessity of legislation restricting rights (see Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, §§ 108 and 110, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).[10] In this case, the majority considers the parliamentary review conducted by the Finnish Parliament to be "exacting and pertinent" (§ 193 of the judgment).

• EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 39534/07

  ÖSTERREICHISCHE VEREINIGUNG ZUR ERHALTUNG, STÄRKUNG UND SCHAFFUNG v. AUSTRIA

  In that connection their activities warrant similar Convention protection to that afforded to the press (see Társaság a Szabadságjogokért, cited above, § 27, and Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 103, 22 April 2013).

  3. The Grand Chamber has accepted that when a non-governmental organisation (NGO) draws attention to matters of public interest, it is exercising a public watchdog role of similar importance to that of the press (see Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 103, 22 April 2013).

• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 21881/20

  COMMUNAUTÉ GENEVOISE D'ACTION SYNDICALE (CGAS) c. SUISSE

  La Cour ajoute encore que l'État peut, dans le respect des dispositions de la Convention, adopter des mesures générales qui s'appliquent à des situations prédéfinies indépendamment des circonstances propres à chaque cas individuel, même si ces mesures risquent de conduire à des difficultés dans certains cas particuliers (Animal Defenders International c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 48876/08, § 106, CEDH 2013 (extraits), ou Zdanoka c. Lettonie [GC], no 58278/00, §§ 112-115, CEDH 2006-IV).

  Par ailleurs, dans sa jurisprudence, la Cour insiste de plus en plus sur la qualité du débat parlementaire, laquelle est prise en compte dans l'évaluation de la proportionnalité d'une mesure générale (voir notamment Parrillo c. Italie [GC], no 46470/11, § 188, CEDH 2015, Animal Defenders International c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 48876/08, § 114, CEDH 2013 (extraits), Hirst c. Royaume-Uni (no 2) [GC], no 74025/01, § 79, CEDH 2005-IX).

  Il est encore étonnant que l'arrêt, se référant à un certain nombre d'arrêts de la Cour, souligne que « pour qu'une mesure puisse être considérée comme proportionnée et nécessaire dans une société démocratique, l'existence d'une mesure portant moins gravement atteinte au droit fondamental en cause et permettant d'arriver au même but doit être exclue'(paragraphe 87 de l'arrêt), alors que, dans l'arrêt Vavricka, la Grande Chambre s'y est délibérément refusée, ce qui a d'ailleurs été critiqué par le juge Wojtyczek dans son opinion dissidente jointe à l'arrêt, dans laquelle il cite une série d'arrêts de la Cour en sens contraire (par exemple Animal Defenders International c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 48876/08, § 110, CEDH 2013 (extraits)) (paragraphe 14).

• EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 31045/10

  THE NATIONAL UNION OF RAIL, MARITIME AND TRANSPORT WORKERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  As it has recently recalled, a State may, consistently with the Convention, adopt general legislative measures applying to pre-defined situations without providing for individualised assessments with regard to the individual, necessarily differing and perhaps complex circumstances of each single case governed by the legislation (see Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 107, 22 April 2013, with many further references concerning different provisions of the Convention and Protocol No. 1).

  This is true in particular where such measures affect fundamental civil and political rights, such as freedom of expression, the supervision over the protection of these rights having been the very purpose of the Court's creation (see the dissenting opinion of Judges Ziemele, Sajó, Kalaydjieva, Vucinic and De Gaetano in Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, ECHR 2013).

• EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 22947/13

  News-Portal: Keine Haftung für Nutzerkommentare

  The fundamental principles concerning the question whether an interference with freedom of expression is "necessary in a democratic society" are well established in the Court's case-law and have been summarised as follows (see, among other authorities, Hertel v. Switzerland, 25 August 1998, § 46, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI; Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 87, ECHR 2005-II; Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland [GC], no. 16354/06, § 48, ECHR 2012; Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 100, ECHR 2013; and most recently in Delfi AS, cited above, § 131):.
• EGMR, 09.07.2021 - 6697/18

  Familiennachzug bei subsidiärem Schutz: Kompromiss zwischen Menschenrechten und …
• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12

  Ungarn verstößt gegen Menschenrechtskonvention
• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 16760/22

  EXECUTIEF VAN DE MOSLIMS VAN BELGIË ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 20.06.2017 - 67667/09

  "Homosexuellen-Propaganda"-Gesetz in Russland: Diskriminierend - und …
• EGMR, 09.03.2023 - 36345/16

  L.B. v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11

  PARRILLO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 42461/13

  KARÁCSONY ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE
• EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 60818/10

  Identifizierende Berichterstattung kann von Meinungsfreiheit umfasst sein
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 6987/07

  GUSEVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2017 - 43494/09

  GARIB c. PAYS-BAS
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 54145/10

  ERLA HLYNSDÓTTIR v. ICELAND (No. 3)
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08

  Leugnung des Völkermords an den Armeniern kann von Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt sein
• EGMR, 28.04.2020 - 61178/14

  Verletzung der Meinungsfreiheit durch Anwendung des ungarischen Mediengesetzes …
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 36480/07

  LEKIC c. SLOVÉNIE
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25501/07

  NOVIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.03.2024 - 10103/20

  SIEC OBYWATELSKA WATCHDOG POLSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 27.04.2021 - 15976/16

  TÖKÉS c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 17224/11

  MEDZLIS ISLAMSKE ZAJEDNICE BRCKO AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 57592/08

  HUTCHINSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 48074/10

  Im Verfahren darf Richtern auch schon einmal "vorsätzliche Verzerrung der …
• EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 14793/08

  Transsexualität: Recht auf Geschlechtsumwandlung gestärkt
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 36537/15

  BENITEZ MORIANA AND IÑIGO FERNANDEZ v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 57818/09

  LASHMANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 49327/11

  Ohne Kleidung durch England: Nackt-Wanderer verliert
• EGMR, 04.04.2024 - 49049/18

  ZÖLDI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 18597/13

  GRA STIFTUNG GEGEN RASSISMUS UND ANTISEMITISMUS v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 34823/05

  ÖZÇELEBI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 69317/14

  Modekampagne darf religiöse Symbole zeigen
• EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 6016/16

  COVENTRY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 56925/08

  EGMR zur Verurteilung eines Journalisten wegen Veröffentlichung von Informationen …
• EGMR, 13.06.2019 - 77633/16

  MARCELLO VIOLA c. ITALIE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 11882/10

  PENTIKÄINEN c. FINLANDE
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 29680/05

  DILIPAK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 22636/19

  Oben-Ohne Protest in katholischer Kirche: Bewährungsstrafe gegen Aktivistin …
• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 51220/13

  M.C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 27.11.2023 - 21881/20

  COMMUNAUTÉ GENEVOISE D'ACTION SYNDICALE (CGAS) v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 36345/16

  L.B. v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 44873/09

  OGNEVENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 46577/15

  IVANOVA AND CHERKEZOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 1562/10

  REMUSZKO v. POLAND
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 43494/09

  GARIB v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9540/07

  MURAT VURAL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 12.04.2022 - 15136/20

  LINGS v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 76521/12

  EMINAGAOGLU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 06.04.2021 - 10783/14

  HANDZHIYSKI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 70287/11

  WEBER v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 40877/07

  HASAN YAZICI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 23.03.2017 - 53251/13

  A.-M.V. v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 73571/10

  Kündigung eines Journalisten wegen Kritik an Arbeitgeber in einem Buch verletzt …
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 20233/06

  KULA c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  ERLA HLYNSDÓTTIR v. ICELAND (No. 2)
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 28881/07

  ORAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 40072/13

  MIROSLAVA TODOROVA c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 58812/15

  POLYAKH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 48979/10

  ERGÜNDOGAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 60087/10

  ÖGRÜ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EuG, 23.01.2017 - T-727/15

  Justice & Environment / Kommission - Zugang zu Dokumenten - Verordnung (EG) Nr. …
• EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 25212/21

  K.K. AND OTHERS v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 31.05.2022 - 208/18

  U-Haft für türkischen Amnesty-Chef war rechtswidrig
• EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 49588/12

  TESLENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 39325/20

  SEKS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 36889/18

  CAMELIA BOGDAN c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 43932/19

  KATONA AND ZÁVARSKÝ v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 63539/19

  ZEMMOUR c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 13.02.2020 - 45245/15

  GAUGHRAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 81292/17

  CHOCHOLÁC v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 66984/14

  ASSOCIAZIONE POLITICA NAZIONALE LISTA MARCO PANNELLA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 22853/15

  MERKANTIL CAR ZRT. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 26922/14

  Spanien verurteilt: Ab wann eine Polizeimaßnahme "Folter" heißen darf
• EGMR, 27.07.2021 - 29856/13

  SIC - SOCIEDADE INDEPENDENTE DE COMUNICAÇÃO v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 5869/17

  ERKIZIA ALMANDOZ c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 41723/14

  SCHWEIZERISCHE RADIO- UND FERNSEHGESELLSCHAFT ET PUBLISUISSE SA c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 45083/06

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND MILASHINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 25147/09

  TERENTYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.07.2023 - 23782/20

  OSMAN ET ALTAY c. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 846/16

  ZELENCHUK AND TSYTSYURA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 38334/08

  ANCHEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 22588/08

  SÕRO v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 19219/07

  SYLKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 48310/16

  KABLIS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 42911/08

  ORLOVSKAYA ISKRA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 12138/08

  AURELIAN OPREA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 02.09.2021 - 46883/15

  Z.B. c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 31955/11

  JEZIOR c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 27.06.2019 - 13290/11

  SVIT ROZVAG, TOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 24973/15

  CANGI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 31736/04

  ERDOGAN GÖKÇE c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 31.05.2022 - 32185/20

  H v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 12261/06

  AYDOGAN ET DARA RADYO TELEVIZYON YAYINCILIK ANONIM SIRKETI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 6875/05

  SAYGILI AND KARATAS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 08.06.2023 - 27926/21

  FRAGOSO DACOSTA v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 44652/18

  PONTA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 25802/18

  STRØBYE AND ROSENLIND v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 16224/05

  REDAKTSIYA GAZETY ZEMLYAKI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.11.2016 - 18288/06

  BOYKANOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 33160/04

  SAHIN KUS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 52363/11

  BIDART c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 21724/03

  OOO 'VESTI' AND UKHOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 2317/20

  THE KARIBU FOUNDATION v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 41055/12

  ASSOTSIATSIYA NGO GOLOS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 20002/13

  ASSOCIAZIONE POLITICA NAZIONALE LISTA MARCO PANNELLA ET RADICALI ITALIANI c. …
• EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 2591/19

  GACHECHILADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 64406/09

  GÜLBAHAR ÖZER AND YUSUF ÖZER v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 36487/12

  M.P. v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 09.05.2016 - 42442/08

  MURA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 58060/13

  MAGUIRE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 07.03.2023 - 27227/17

  OSSEWAARDE v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 72497/17

  MGN LIMITED v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 53139/11

  DO CARMO DE PORTUGAL E CASTRO CÂMARA v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 15450/03

  MÜDÜR DUMAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 06.04.2023 - 15158/19

  DROZD v. POLAND
• EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 27560/15

  WYSOCZANSKI v. POLAND