Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MILOSAVLJEVIC v. SERBIA

  No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MILOSAVLJEVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 11, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• afp 2021, 306

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.05.2021 - 57574/14

  However, it cannot be said that civil servants knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed to the extent to which politicians do and should therefore be treated on an equal footing with the latter when it comes to the criticism of their actions (see, mutatis mutandis, Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999-I; see also Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-II, and Mariapori v. Finland, no. 37751/07, § 56, 6 July 2010).
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37751/07

  MARIAPORI v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.05.2021 - 57574/14

  However, it cannot be said that civil servants knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed to the extent to which politicians do and should therefore be treated on an equal footing with the latter when it comes to the criticism of their actions (see, mutatis mutandis, Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999-I; see also Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-II, and Mariapori v. Finland, no. 37751/07, § 56, 6 July 2010).
• EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 73604/01

  Monnat / Schweiz "L´honneur perdu de la Suisse"

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.05.2021 - 57574/14

  In spite of the essential role of the press in a democratic society, however, paragraph 2 of Article 10 does not guarantee a wholly unrestricted freedom of expression even with respect to press coverage of matters of serious public concern (see, for example, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III, and Monnat v. Switzerland, no. 73604/01, § 66, ECHR 2006-X).

 
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.05.2021 - 57574/14

  In spite of the essential role of the press in a democratic society, however, paragraph 2 of Article 10 does not guarantee a wholly unrestricted freedom of expression even with respect to press coverage of matters of serious public concern (see, for example, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III, and Monnat v. Switzerland, no. 73604/01, § 66, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.05.2021 - 57574/14

  The amount of any compensation awarded must likewise "bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the... [moral]... injury... suffered" by the plaintiff in question (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 49, Series A no. 316-B; see also Tesic, cited above, § 63).
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 20893/03

  JULY AND SARL LIBERATION v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.05.2021 - 57574/14

  The Court has furthermore recognised the existence of such an interest, for example, when the publication in question concerned information on criminal proceedings in general (see Dupuis and Others v. France, no. 1914/02, § 42, 7 June 2007, and July and SARL Libération v. France, no. 20893/03, § 66, ECHR 2008 (extracts)) or information regarding a specific criminal case (see White v. Sweden, no. 42435/02, § 29, 19 September 2006, and Egeland and Hanseid v. Norway, no. 34438/04, § 58, 16 April 2009).
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  SCHARSACH ET NEWS VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.05.2021 - 57574/14

  The Court has also held in numerous cases that a lack of relevant and sufficient reasoning on the part of the national courts or a failure to consider the applicable standards in assessing the interference in question will entail a violation of Article 10 (see, among many other authorities, Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 46, ECHR 2003-XI; Uj v. Hungary, no. 23954/10, §§ 25 and 26, 19 July 2011; and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, § 264, 17 July 2018).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 20985/05

  ORBAN ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.05.2021 - 57574/14

  It is not disputed between the parties that the final civil judgment rendered against the applicant, as a journalist and an editor-in-chief, by the Kragujevac Appeals Court on 4 April 2011 amounted to an "interference by [a] public authority" with his right to freedom of expression (see paragraph 17 above; see also, mutatis mutandis, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, §§ 9 and 66, ECHR 2007-IV, Orban and Others v. France, no. 20985/05, § 47, 15 January 2009, with further references, and Gutiérrez Suárez v. Spain, no. 16023/07, §§ 28 and 29, 1 June 2010, as regards the situation of authors as well as publishers, publication directors and editors responsible for their publications).
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12

  Mariya Alekhina u.a. ./. Russland - "Pussy Riot"-Urteil verletzt Meinungsfreiheit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.05.2021 - 57574/14

  The Court has also held in numerous cases that a lack of relevant and sufficient reasoning on the part of the national courts or a failure to consider the applicable standards in assessing the interference in question will entail a violation of Article 10 (see, among many other authorities, Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 46, ECHR 2003-XI; Uj v. Hungary, no. 23954/10, §§ 25 and 26, 19 July 2011; and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, § 264, 17 July 2018).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.05.2021 - 57574/14

  It is not disputed between the parties that the final civil judgment rendered against the applicant, as a journalist and an editor-in-chief, by the Kragujevac Appeals Court on 4 April 2011 amounted to an "interference by [a] public authority" with his right to freedom of expression (see paragraph 17 above; see also, mutatis mutandis, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, §§ 9 and 66, ECHR 2007-IV, Orban and Others v. France, no. 20985/05, § 47, 15 January 2009, with further references, and Gutiérrez Suárez v. Spain, no. 16023/07, §§ 28 and 29, 1 June 2010, as regards the situation of authors as well as publishers, publication directors and editors responsible for their publications).
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 23954/10

  Zur Meinungsfreiheit in Ungarn
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 1914/02

  DUPUIS AND OTHERS v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)
• EGMR, 16.04.2009 - 34438/04

  EGELAND AND HANSEID v. NORWAY

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 07.04.2022 - C-460/20

  Generalanwalt Pitruzzella ist der Auffassung, dass ein auf die angebliche …

  42 Vgl. u. a. EGMR, 25. Mai 2021, Milosavlievic/Serbien (CE:ECHR:2021:0525JUD005757414, § 63).
• EGMR, 31.10.2023 - 9602/18

  EGMR gibt Bild nach Debatte um Polizeigewalt recht: Bild.de muss Polizisten nicht …

  Turning to the argument put forward by the third party regarding law-enforcement officers exercising their official functions (see paragraph 24 above), the Court would reiterate that it cannot be said that civil servants knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed to the extent to which politicians do and should therefore be treated on an equal footing with the latter when it comes to criticism of their actions (see Milosavljevic v. Serbia, no. 57574/14, § 60, 25 May 2021, and Stancu and Others v. Romania, no. 22953/16, § 116, 18 October 2022, the latter concerning criticism levelled against a public prosecutor).
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 67369/16

  RADIO BROADCASTING COMPANY B92 AD v. SERBIA

  (f) the severity of the sanction imposed (see, for example, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, §§ 89-95, 7 February 2012; Milisavljevic v. Serbia, no. 50123/06, § 33, 4 April 2017; and Milosavljevic v. Serbia, no. 57574/14, § 54, 25 May 2021).