Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SECKERSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND TIMES NEWSPAPERS LIMITED v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• lehofer.at (Kurzinformation und Auszüge)

  Absolute Vertraulichkeit der Beratungen von Geschworenen keine Verletzung des Art 10 EMRK

• beck.de (Kurzinformation)

  Verurteilung wegen Verstoßes gegen die absolute Vertraulichkeit von Geschworenen verletzt nicht Art.10 EMRK

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

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 32844/10

  It follows that in examining whether the interference was justified, it is not the role of this Court to substitute its views for those of the national authorities but to review the case as a whole, in the light of Article 10, and consider whether the decision taken by national authorities fell within the margin of appreciation allowed to the member States in this area (Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 50, Series A no. 24; Times Newspapers Ltd, cited above, § 43; and Financial Times Ltd and Others, cited above, § 61 ).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 32844/10

  Relying on the Court's judgment in The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 65, Series A no. 30, they argued that it was not sufficient that the interference arose because its subject-matter fell within a particular category or was caught by a legal rule formulated in general or absolute terms.
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 32844/10

  The Court reiterates that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and in that context the safeguards guaranteed to the press are particularly important (see Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216; Times Newspapers Ltd v. United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), nos.

 
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 32844/10

  Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (Observer and Guardian, cited above, § 59; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-III; Gutiérrez Suárez v. Spain, no. 16023/07, § 25, 1 June 2010; MGN Limited, cited above, § 141; and Mosley, cited above, § 112).
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 3002/03

  TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1 et N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 32844/10

  3002/03 and 23676/03, § 40, 10 March 2009).
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48009/08

  Keine Pflicht zur Vorabbenachrichtigung bei Veröffentlichung privater …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 32844/10

  The press has a pre-eminent role in informing the public and imparting information and ideas on matters of public interest in a State governed by the rule of law (see Financial Times Ltd and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 821/03, § 59, 15 December 2009; MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, § 141, 18 January 2011; and Mosley v. the United Kingdom, no. 48009/08, § 112, 10 May 2011).
• EGMR, 13.11.2019 - 39401/04

  MGN LIMITED AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 32844/10

  The press has a pre-eminent role in informing the public and imparting information and ideas on matters of public interest in a State governed by the rule of law (see Financial Times Ltd and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 821/03, § 59, 15 December 2009; MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, § 141, 18 January 2011; and Mosley v. the United Kingdom, no. 48009/08, § 112, 10 May 2011).
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 42864/05

  TIMPUL INFO-MAGAZIN AND ANGHEL v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 32844/10

  It follows that the most careful of scrutiny under Article 10 is required where measures or sanctions imposed on the press are capable of discouraging the participation of the press in debates on matters of legitimate public concern (Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, cited above, § 64; and Times Newspapers Ltd, cited above, § 41) and that particularly strong reasons must be provided for any measure limiting access to information which the public has the right to receive (see Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel v. Moldova, no. 42864/05, § 31, 27 November 2007; and Times Newspapers Ltd, cited above, § 41).