Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LOPUCH v. POLAND

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 64915/01

  CHAUVY AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 43587/09

  In particular, the Court must determine whether the measure taken was "proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued" (see, among many other authorities, Chauvy and Others v. France, no. 64915/01, § 70, ECHR 2004-VI).
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 10941/03

  BEZYMYANNYY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 43587/09

  The Contracting States have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether such a need exists, but it goes hand in hand with European supervision, embracing both the legislation and the decisions applying it, even those delivered by an independent court (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 58, ECHR 1999-III; Cumpana and Mazare, cited above, § 88; and Bezymyannyy v. Russia, no. 10941/03, § 36, 8 April 2010).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 43587/09

  The Contracting States have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether such a need exists, but it goes hand in hand with European supervision, embracing both the legislation and the decisions applying it, even those delivered by an independent court (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 58, ECHR 1999-III; Cumpana and Mazare, cited above, § 88; and Bezymyannyy v. Russia, no. 10941/03, § 36, 8 April 2010).

 
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 43587/09

  An interference with a person's freedom of expression entails a violation of Article 10 of the Convention if it does not fall within one of the exceptions provided for in paragraph 2 of that Article (see The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 29, § 45, and Cumpana and Mazare v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 85, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

  FEY v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 43587/09

  What is at stake as regards protection of the authority of the judiciary is the confidence which the courts in a democratic society must inspire in the accused, as far as criminal proceedings are concerned, and also in the public at large (see, mutatis mutandis, among many other authorities, Fey v. Austria, judgment of 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255-A, p. 12, § 30).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 43587/09

  An interference with a person's freedom of expression entails a violation of Article 10 of the Convention if it does not fall within one of the exceptions provided for in paragraph 2 of that Article (see The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 29, § 45, and Cumpana and Mazare v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 85, ECHR 2004-XI).

• EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 52517/13

  SCHUMAN v. POLAND

  As regards the test of "necessity in the democratic society", the relevant general principles are set out in paragraphs 54-58 of the Court's judgment in the case Lopuch v. Poland, no. 43587/09, 24 July 2012.
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 33502/07

  MARINOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Moreover, the aim sought to be achieved by the applicants" convictions was not the maintenance of the authority of the judiciary, which may supply greater justification for such measures, but the reputation of the public officials concerned (contrast Lesník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, § 54, ECHR 2003-IV; Skalka, cited above, §§ 40-41; Saday v. Turkey, no. 32458/96, §§ 33 and 35, 30 March 2006; Bezymyannyy v. Russia, no. 10941/03, § 38, 8 April 2010; and Lopuch v. Poland, no. 43587/09, §§ 61 and 63, 24 July 2012).
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 38652/15

  CIESLA v. POLAND

  As regards the test of "necessity in the democratic society", the relevant general principles are set out in paragraphs 54-58 of the Court's judgment in the case Lopuch v. Poland, no. 43587/09, 24 July 2012.
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 18312/08

  ZDRAVKO STANEV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)

  The Court has examined cases relating to disparaging statements against judges or public prosecutors made by unrepresented litigants in the course of or in connection with judicial proceedings (see Lesník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, ECHR 2003-IV (public prosecutor); Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, 27 May 2003 (judge); Saday v. Turkey, no. 32458/96, 30 March 2006 (judges); Bezymyannyy v. Russia, no. 10941/03, 8 April 2010 (judge); and Lopuch v. Poland, no. 43587/09, 24 July 2012 (judge)).
• EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 27560/15

  WYSOCZANSKI v. POLAND

  As regards the test of "necessity in the democratic society", the relevant general principles are set out in the Court's judgment in the case ?�opuch v. Poland, no. 43587/09, §§ 54-58, 24 July 2012.