Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 37713/18 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MEDIENGRUPPE ÖSTERREICH GMBH v. AUSTRIA
No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
MEDIENGRUPPE ÖSTERREICH GMBH v. AUSTRIA
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (10)
- EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 31457/96
NEWS VERLAGS GmbH & Co. KG v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 37713/18
In examining this balance the Court must have regard, among other factors, to the state's positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 23, Series A no. 91; and Von Hannover (No.2), cited above, § 98), and to the principles established in its settled case-law regarding the essential role played by the press in a democratic society (see News Verlags GmbH & Co.KG v. Austria, no. 31457/96, § 55, ECHR 2000-I).The Court has already held in a similar case that a person expressing extremist views lays himself open to public scrutiny (see, News Verlags GmbH & Co.KG v. Austria, no. 31457/96, § 56, ECHR 2000-I).
- EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 35841/02
ÖSTERREICHISCHER RUNDFUNK v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 37713/18
It referred to its reasoning in the provisional proceedings (see paragraph 14 above) and added, citing the case of Österreichischer Rundfunk v. Austria (no. 35841/02, 7 December 2006), that there was no temporal connection between the photograph taken in 1987, H.S.'s criminal conviction in 1995, and the applicant company calling him a "convicted neo-Nazi" in the impugned article of 2016.Referring to the case of Österreichischer Rundfunk v. Austria (no. 35841/02, § 65, 7 December 2006; see also paragraph 53 below), the applicant company stated that the criminal proceedings against him and his conviction for acts punishable under the Prohibition Act on account of his activities as a leading member of the Extra-Parliamentary organisation Opposition True to the People (Volkstreue Außerparlamentarische Opposition - VAPO) formed an important part of contemporary judicial history.
- EGMR, 19.09.2013 - 8772/10
Caroline von Hannover unterliegt gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 37713/18
The relevant criteria include: the contribution to a debate of public interest; the degree of notoriety of the person affected; the subject of the news report; the prior conduct of the person concerned; the content, form and consequences of publication; and, where appropriate, the circumstances in which the photographs were taken (see Von Hannover (No.2), cited above, §§ 108-113; Von Hannover (No. 3), no. 8772/10, § 46, 19 September 2013; and Axel Springer AG, cited above, §§ 89-95).
- EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89
JERSILD v. DENMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 37713/18
Accordingly, the Court must exercise caution when the measures taken by the national authorities are such as to dissuade the media from taking part in the discussion of matters of public interest (see for instance Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 58, ECHR 2001-III, and Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, pp. - EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14
Udo Pastörs: Holocaust-Leugnung ist in Europa kein Menschenrecht
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 37713/18
This must apply all the more to persons who did not only express extremist views but who committed severe crimes such as those under the Prohibition Act that run counter to the letter and the spirit of the Convention (see, in this context, mutatis mutandis, Witzsch v. Germany (dec.), no. 7485/03, 13 December 2005 and the cases cited therein, and, more recently, Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, § 39, 3 October 2019). - EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 7485/03
Missbrauchsverbot der EMRK (Nazi-Propaganda; Holocaust: Ausschwitz-Lüge und …
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 37713/18
This must apply all the more to persons who did not only express extremist views but who committed severe crimes such as those under the Prohibition Act that run counter to the letter and the spirit of the Convention (see, in this context, mutatis mutandis, Witzsch v. Germany (dec.), no. 7485/03, 13 December 2005 and the cases cited therein, and, more recently, Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, § 39, 3 October 2019). - EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48009/08
Keine Pflicht zur Vorabbenachrichtigung bei Veröffentlichung privater …
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 37713/18
Neither was it ordered to refrain completely in the future from publishing H.S.'s image without his consent (compare and contrast Mosley v. the United Kingdom, no. 48009/08, 10 May 2011), or even from reporting on his trial in 1995. - EGMR, 25.05.2004 - 57597/00
OSTERREICHISCHER RUNDFUNK v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 37713/18
The latter elements distinguish the present case from a comparable case (Österreichischer Rundfunk v. Austria (dec.), no. 57597/00, 25 May 2004), which was declared inadmissible. - EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 60798/10
Namen der Sedlmayr-Mörder bleiben im Netz
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 37713/18
This includes reporting and commenting on court proceedings and, more particularly, criminal proceedings (see M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, nos. 60798/10 and 65599/10, §§ 89 and 98, 28 June 2018). - EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08
Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 37713/18
40660/08 and 60641/08, ECHR 2012), the applicant company argued that the publication of the impugned article and photograph had reported on the criminal conviction of H.S. in a purely factual manner.
- EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 14139/21
NARBUTAS v. LITHUANIA
In this connection, the Court emphasises that even when providing the public with information which it has a legitimate interest in receiving, the authorities must not overstep certain bounds, in particular in respect of the reputation and rights of others, and that they must strike a fair balance between the competing interests (see, mutatis mutandis, Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 50, 29 March 2016, and Mediengruppe Österreich GmbH v. Austria, no. 37713/18, § 48, 26 April 2022; see also the case-law of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court cited in paragraph 147 above and Recommendation Rec(2003)13 of the Committee of Ministers quoted in paragraph 154 above). - EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 57292/16
HURBAIN c. BELGIQUE
Le laps de temps entre la condamnation pénale, la mise en liberté et la nouvelle publication a constitué un élément déterminant pour son examen (Österreichischer Rundfunk c. Autriche, no 35841/02, §§ 68-69, 7 décembre 2006, et, récemment, Mediengruppe Österreich Gmbh c. Autriche, no 37713/18, §§ 68-70, 26 avril 2022).