Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOPRIVICA v. MONTENEGRO

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Just satisfaction - reserved (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 41158/09
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 41158/09
• EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 41158/09
• EGMR - 41158/09 (anhängig)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 41158/09

  By reason of the "duties and responsibilities" inherent in the exercise of the freedom of expression, the safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see, mutatis mutandis, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III; as well as Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 61, 14 February 2008, and Kasabova v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 63).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 41158/09

  Journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 49, ECHR 1999-VI).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 41158/09

  The Court's task in exercising its supervisory function is to look at the interference complained of in the light of the case as a whole and to determine whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient" and whether the measure taken was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 52, Series A no. 323; and Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 33, ECHR 2001-II).

 
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 41158/09

  Finally, the amount of compensation awarded must "bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the... [moral]... injury... suffered" by the plaintiff in question (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 49 Series A no. 316-B; Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 96, ECHR 2005 - II, where the Court held that the damages "awarded... although relatively moderate by contemporary standards... [were]... very substantial when compared to the modest incomes and resources of the... applicants..." and, as such, in breach of the Convention; see also Lepojic v. Serbia, no. 13909/05, § 77 in fine, 6 November 2007, where the reasoning of the domestic courts was found to be insufficient given, inter alia, the amount of compensation and costs awarded equivalent to approximately eight average monthly salaries).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 41158/09

  It is in the first place for the national authorities to assess whether there is a "pressing social need" for a restriction on freedom of expression and, in making that assessment, they enjoy a certain margin of appreciation (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 13909/05

  LEPOJIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 41158/09

  Finally, the amount of compensation awarded must "bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the... [moral]... injury... suffered" by the plaintiff in question (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 49 Series A no. 316-B; Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 96, ECHR 2005 - II, where the Court held that the damages "awarded... although relatively moderate by contemporary standards... [were]... very substantial when compared to the modest incomes and resources of the... applicants..." and, as such, in breach of the Convention; see also Lepojic v. Serbia, no. 13909/05, § 77 in fine, 6 November 2007, where the reasoning of the domestic courts was found to be insufficient given, inter alia, the amount of compensation and costs awarded equivalent to approximately eight average monthly salaries).
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

  RUMYANA IVANOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 41158/09

  By reason of the "duties and responsibilities" inherent in the exercise of the freedom of expression, the safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see, mutatis mutandis, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III; as well as Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 61, 14 February 2008, and Kasabova v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 63).
• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 17089/03

  SORGUÇ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 41158/09

  In any event, the Court considers that the damages and costs he was ordered to pay to the plaintiff were very substantial even when compared to the highest incomes in the respondent State in general (see paragraph 21 above, see also, mutatis mutandis, Sorguç v. Turkey, no. 17089/03, § 37, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  KASABOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 41158/09

  The existence of facts can be demonstrated, whereas the truth of value-judgments is not susceptible of proof (see CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 98, ECHR 2004-XI, and Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, § 58 in limine, 19 April 2011).
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 41158/09

  The Court's task in exercising its supervisory function is to look at the interference complained of in the light of the case as a whole and to determine whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient" and whether the measure taken was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 52, Series A no. 323; and Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 33, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM