Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IEREMEIOV v. ROMANIA (No. 1)

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 10 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 75300/01
• EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 75300/01

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 75300/01

  Without denying the provocative value of these expressions, the Court reiterates that 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, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95

  CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 75300/01

  In similar circumstances to those of the present case, the Court has established that where an appellate court is called upon to examine a case as to the facts and the law and to make a full assessment of the question of the applicant's guilt or innocence, it cannot, as a matter of fair trial, properly determine those issues without a direct assessment of the evidence given in person by the accused (see Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 75300/01

  Furthermore, the Court cannot attach weight to the County Court's finding that the applicant had acted in bad faith, in so far as the criminal proceedings lacked the requirements of a fair trial (see paragraph 32 above; Folea v. Romania, no. 34434/02, § 42, 14 October 2008; and, mutatis mutandis, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 95, ECHR 2005-II).

 
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 20893/03

  JULY AND SARL LIBERATION v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 75300/01

  The Court refers to the general principles established in its case-law concerning freedom of expression, in particular the protection afforded to journalists who cover matters of public concern and that afforded to civil servants' reputation (see among the more recent judgments, Busuioc v. Moldova, no. 61513/00, §§ 56-62, 21 December 2004; Stângu and Scutelnicu, cited above, §§ 40-42 and 52-53; and July and Sarl Libération v. France, no. 20893/03, §§ 60-64, ECHR 2008-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 34434/02

  FOLEA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 75300/01

  Furthermore, the Court cannot attach weight to the County Court's finding that the applicant had acted in bad faith, in so far as the criminal proceedings lacked the requirements of a fair trial (see paragraph 32 above; Folea v. Romania, no. 34434/02, § 42, 14 October 2008; and, mutatis mutandis, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 95, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 75300/01

  In order to establish whether a person has been criminally convicted within the autonomous meaning of the Convention the Court applies the so-called "Engel criteria", most recently reaffirmed in Jussila v. Finland ([GC], no. 73053/01, §§ 30-31, ECHR 2006-XIV) and Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 14939/03, § 53, 10 February 2009).
• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 75300/01

  As for the nature of the offence, the Court notes that the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code were directed towards all citizens rather than towards a group possessing special status and that the offence in question made the perpetrator liable to penalties intended to punish and deter (see Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39665/98 and 40086/98, § 104, ECHR 2003-X; Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, § 52, Series A no. 73; Anghel v. Romania, no. 28183/03, § 51, 4 October 2007; and Zolotukhin, cited above, § 55).