Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BODROZIC AND VUJIN v. SERBIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 38435/05

  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, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 38435/05

  The Court reaffirms that, pursuant to its long-standing practice, there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on the debate of public interest questions (see Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 46, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 38435/05

  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 to 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 - 38435/05

  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, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 38435/05

  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 to 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, 22.11.2016 - 8918/05

  GREBNEVA AND ALISIMCHIK v. RUSSIA

  Irrespective of the severity of the penalty which is liable to be imposed, a recourse to the criminal prosecution of journalists for purported insults, with the attendant risk of a criminal conviction and a criminal penalty, for criticising a public figure in a manner which can be regarded as personally insulting, is likely to deter journalists from contributing to the public discussion of issues affecting the life of the community (see, for a similar conclusion, Bodrozic and Vujin v. Serbia, no. 38435/05, § 39, 23 June 2009).
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 50123/06

  MILISAVLJEVIC v. SERBIA

  Irrespective of the severity of the penalty which is liable to be imposed, a recourse to the criminal prosecution of journalists for purported insults, with the attendant risk of a criminal conviction and a criminal penalty, for criticising a public figure in a manner which can be regarded as personally insulting, is likely to deter journalists from contributing to the public discussion of issues affecting the life of the community (see paragraph 19 above; see, also, Bodrozic and Vujin v. Serbia, no. 38435/05, § 39, 23 June 2009, and Grebneva and Alisimchik v. Russia, no. 8918/05, § 65, 22 November 2016 (not yet final)).