Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MILJEVIC v. CROATIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MILJEVIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 68317/13

  Had that been the case, I would agree that his prosecution or conviction could be justified on the basis, among other elements, of the protection of the authority of the judiciary, which concerns all "persons involved in the machinery of justice" (see The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 56, Series A no. 30).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 68317/13

  The clause relating to this safeguard is designed primarily to protect the judiciary against gravely damaging attacks that are essentially unfounded (see Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 128, ECHR 2015), but also to protect the rights of litigants (see Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 56, Series A no. 216).
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 68317/13

  In this connection, while the right to freedom of expression is not unlimited, equality of arms and fairness more generally militate in favour of a free and even forceful exchange of arguments between the parties (see Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 49, ECHR 2002-II; Saday v. Turkey, no.32458/96, § 34, 30 March 2006; and Zdravko Stanev (No. 2), cited above, § 40).

 
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 68317/13

  In this connection, the Court opined as follows (see Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, § 52, Series A no. 211):.
• EGMR, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85

  DELTA c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 68317/13

  According to its case-law, it is, as a rule, for the national courts to assess the evidence before them (see, mutatis mutandis, the Delta judgment of 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191-A, p. 15, para. 35).".
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 68317/13

  In principle, in view of the margin of appreciation left to Contracting States by Article 10 of the Convention, a criminal measure as a response to defamation cannot, as such, be considered disproportionate to the aim pursued (see, for instance, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-IV, and Kacki v. Poland, no. 10947/11, § 57, 4 July 2017).
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37751/07

  MARIAPORI v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 68317/13

  Thus in this context it is only in exceptional circumstances that restriction - even by way of a lenient criminal penalty - of the freedom of expression can be accepted as necessary in a democratic society (see Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, § 174, ECHR 2005-XIII; see also Nikula, cited above, §§ 49 and 55, and Mariapori v. Finland, no. 37751/07, § 62, 6 July 2010).
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 10947/11

  KACKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 68317/13

  In principle, in view of the margin of appreciation left to Contracting States by Article 10 of the Convention, a criminal measure as a response to defamation cannot, as such, be considered disproportionate to the aim pursued (see, for instance, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-IV, and Kacki v. Poland, no. 10947/11, § 57, 4 July 2017).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 68317/13

  The general principles applicable to the balancing of these rights were first set out in Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC] (nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 104-07, ECHR 2012) and Axel Springer AG (cited above, §§ 85-88), then restated in more detail in Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC] (no. 40454/07, §§ 90-93, ECHR 2015 (extracts)) and more recently summarised in Med?¾lis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others (cited above, § 77).

• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 25551/18

  TADIC v. CROATIA

  This would above all allow the domestic authorities to examine the applicant's complaints at the relevant time in question and ensure that his or her rights were respected (see, for example, Miljevic v. Croatia, no. 68317/13, § 88, 25 June 2020 and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 2303/19

  KATSIKEROS v. GREECE

  The Court's assessment 86. The Court has held that when the domestic law offers a possibility of eliminating concerns regarding the impartiality of a court or a judge, it is expected that an applicant who truly believes that there are arguable concerns on that account would raise them at the first opportunity (see, for example, Miljevic v. Croatia, no. 68317/13, § 88, 25 June 2020, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 78873/13

  FREITAS RANGEL v. PORTUGAL

  In order to distinguish between a factual allegation and a value judgment, it is necessary to take account of the circumstances of the case and the general tone of the remarks, bearing in mind that assertions about matters of public interest may, on that basis, constitute value judgments rather than statements of fact (see Morice, cited above, § 126, with further references, and Miljevic v. Croatia, no. 68317/13, § 56, 25 June 2020).

 
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 36537/15

  BENITEZ MORIANA AND IÑIGO FERNANDEZ v. SPAIN

  Moreover, and in so far as an interference with freedom of expression in the context of the alleged defamation of a judge is concerned, the Court refers to Miljevic v. Croatia (no. 68317/13, § 53, 25 June 2020) and Morice v. France [GC] (no. 29369/10, §§ 124 et seq., ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 19.09.2023 - 28674/12

  NV EXTENSA ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  La Cour a déjà eu l'occasion de préciser que lorsque le droit interne offre une possibilité de dissiper les craintes concernant l'impartialité d'un tribunal ou d'un juge, on peut attendre - et le droit interne exiger - d'un requérant sincèrement convaincu de l'existence de craintes défendables à cet égard qu'il les soulève à la première occasion (Miljevic c. Croatie, no 68317/13, § 88, 25 juin 2020, et Zahirovic c. Croatie, no 58590/11, §§ 35-36, 25 avril 2013).
• EGMR - 45820/21 (anhängig)

  RIBEIRO CABETE DE NORONHA RODRIGUES v. PORTUGAL

  Did the national authorities strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the applicant's right to freedom of expression, as understood in the context of the her role as a lawyer, and the protection of R's reputation, on the other hand (see Morice, cited above, §§ 132-139; Rodriguez Ravelo v. Spain, no. 48074/10, §§ 40-41, 12 January 2016; Pais Pires de Lima v. Portugal, no. 70465/12, §§ 59-60, 12 February 2019; and Miljevic v. Croatia, no. 68317/13, §§ 48-58, 25 June 2020)?.