Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BODROZIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 32550/05
• EGMR, 05.09.2018 - 32550/05

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 23037/04

  MATIJASEVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 32550/05

  The relevant provisions concerning the Court of Serbia and Montenegro are set out in the Matijasevic v. Serbia judgment (no. 23037/04, §§ 12, 13 and 16-25, 19 September 2006).

  Lastly, concerning the Government's submission that the applicant should have lodged a complaint with the Court of Serbia and Montenegro, the Court reiterates that it has already held that this particular remedy was unavailable until 15 July 2005 and, moreover, remained ineffective until the break-up of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro (see Matijasevic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, §§ 34-37, ECHR 2006-...).

• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 32550/05

  Pursuant to the Court's longstanding practice, there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on debate on questions of public interest (see Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 46, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 32550/05

  Moreover, Article 10 protects not only "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb (see, among many other authorities, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 42, Series A no. 236, and Vogt,cited above, § 52).

 
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 32550/05

  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, 23.06.2009 - 32550/05

  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 determine whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient" (see Vogt v. Germany, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323, pp. 25-26, § 52; Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 33, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 32550/05

  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, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 32550/05

  The Court reiterates at this point that it has constant case-law distinguishing facts from value judgments, the latter not being as such susceptible of proof (see, for example, Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, § 46; Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), 23 May 1991, § 63, Series A no. 204).
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 32550/05

  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 determine whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient" (see Vogt v. Germany, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323, pp. 25-26, § 52; Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 33, ECHR 2001-II).