Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Telemedicus

  Identifizierende Berichterstattung kann von Meinungsfreiheit umfasst sein

• Telemedicus

  Identifizierende Berichterstattung kann von Meinungsfreiheit umfasst sein

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VERLAGSGRUPPE NEWS GMBH v. AUSTRIA

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• beck.de (Kurzinformation)

  Österreich verletzt die Pressefreiheit

Besprechungen u.ä. (2)

• Telemedicus (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  Verlagsgruppe News GmbH gegen Österreich

• lehofer.at (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  Verlagsgruppe News gegen Österreich: identifizierender Bericht über Treasurer der Hypo Alpe-Adria zulässig

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VERLAGSGRUPPE NEWS GMBH v. AUSTRIA

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

Papierfundstellen

• GRUR Int. 2017, 273

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

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 60818/10

  Therefore, as the publication at issue contributed to a debate of general interest, there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions (see the principles exposed in paragraph 34 above; see also, inter alia, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV, and Bestry v. Poland, no. 57675/10, § 60, 3 November 2015).
• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 57675/10

  BESTRY v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 60818/10

  Therefore, as the publication at issue contributed to a debate of general interest, there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions (see the principles exposed in paragraph 34 above; see also, inter alia, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV, and Bestry v. Poland, no. 57675/10, § 60, 3 November 2015).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 60818/10

  40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 109-112, ECHR 2012).

 
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 60818/10

  Having regard to the particular circumstances of the case the Court would further have regard to the following elements, namely whether the the author of the publication could reasonably rely on an official report (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 72, ECHR 1999-III) and whether certain information contained in the publication had already been made public or had ceased to be confidential (see Vereniging Weekblad Bluf! v. the Netherlands, 9 February 1995, § 44, Series A no. 306-A; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 2), 26 November 1991, § 54, Series A no. 217; and Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 68, Series A no. 216).
• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 60818/10

  The general principles concerning the necessity of an interference with the freedom of expression have been summarised as follows (see, among other authorities, Stoll v. Switzerland [GC] no. 69698/01, § 101, ECHR 2007-V; Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 100, ECHR 2013 (extracts)): "(i) Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual's self-fulfillment.
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 60818/10

  Having regard to the particular circumstances of the case the Court would further have regard to the following elements, namely whether the the author of the publication could reasonably rely on an official report (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 72, ECHR 1999-III) and whether certain information contained in the publication had already been made public or had ceased to be confidential (see Vereniging Weekblad Bluf! v. the Netherlands, 9 February 1995, § 44, Series A no. 306-A; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 2), 26 November 1991, § 54, Series A no. 217; and Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 68, Series A no. 216).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00

  ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 60818/10

  As regards the criterion of a "contribution to a debate of general interest", the Court reiterates that the margin of appreciation of States, granted when deciding upon the necessity of an interference under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention, is reduced where a debate on a matter of public interest is concerned (see Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 44, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 34147/06

  POLANCO TORRES ET MOVILLA POLANCO c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 60818/10

  The Court further reiterates that the right to protection of reputation is a right which is protected by Article 8 of the Convention as part of the right to respect for private life (see Chauvy and Others v. France, no. 64915/01, § 70, ECHR 2004-VI; Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, § 35, 15 November 2007; and Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, § 40, 21 September 2010).
• EGMR, 13.11.2019 - 39401/04

  MGN LIMITED AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 60818/10

  When examining whether there is a need for an interference with freedom of expression in a democratic society in the interests of the "protection of the reputation or rights of others", the Court may be required to ascertain whether the domestic authorities have struck a fair balance when protecting two values guaranteed by the Convention which may come into conflict with each other in certain cases, namely on the one hand freedom of expression protected by Article 10, and on the other the right to respect for private life enshrined in Article 8 (see Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France, no. 71111/01, § 43, 14 June 2007; MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, § 142, 18 January 2011; Axel Springer AG, cited above, § 84; and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, §§ 50-53, ECHR 2016).

• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 76549/17

  REGIONAL AIR SERVICES S.R.L. ET IVASCU c. ROUMANIE

  Dans ces circonstances, la Cour estime que, même si le requérant ne s'est pas lui-même projeté au-devant de la scène, en révélant publiquement des aspects de sa vie privée (voir, a contrario, Axel Springer, précité, § 101), il était loisible aux juridictions internes de prendre en considération, dans la mise en balance des droits concurrents, le fait que des informations similaires avaient déjà circulé dans les médias avant la diffusion ou la publication des affirmations litigieuses (voir, mutatis mutandis, Verlagsgruppe News GmbH c. Autriche, no 60818/10, § 34 in fine, 25 octobre 2016).