Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MÁNDLI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• beck.de (Kurzinformation)

  Ungarn wegen Verletzung der Meinungsfreiheit verurteilt

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MÁNDLI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  KASABOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 63164/16

  In that judgment the Court reiterated that the protection afforded by Article 10 of the Convention to journalists was subject to the proviso that they act in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the tenets of responsible journalism (ibid., § 90; see also, mutatis mutandis, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I; Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, §§ 61 and 63-68, 19 April 2011; and Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), nos.
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 3002/03

  TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1 et N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 63164/16

  3002/03 and 23676/03, § 42, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 63164/16

  The Court has found that persons carrying out a professional activity, who are used to having to proceed with a high degree of caution when pursuing their occupation, can on this account be expected to take special care in assessing the risks that such activity entails, for instance by seeking appropriate legal advice (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 41, ECHR 2007-IV).

 
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 63164/16

  In particular, it gives politicians the opportunity to reflect and comment on the preoccupations of public opinion; it thus enables everyone to participate in the free political debate which is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society (see Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 43, Series A no. 236).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 63164/16

  In that judgment the Court reiterated that the protection afforded by Article 10 of the Convention to journalists was subject to the proviso that they act in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the tenets of responsible journalism (ibid., § 90; see also, mutatis mutandis, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I; Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, §§ 61 and 63-68, 19 April 2011; and Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), nos.
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 63164/16

  Furthermore, all persons, including journalists, who exercise their freedom of expression undertake "duties and responsibilities", the scope of which depends on their situation and the technical means they use (see, for example, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49 in fine, Series A no. 24).
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

  GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 63164/16

  A law which confers a discretion is thus not in itself inconsistent with the requirement of foreseeability, provided that the scope of the discretion and the manner of its exercise are indicated with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim of the measure in question, to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 51, Series A no. 109).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 63164/16

  In that judgment the Court reiterated that the protection afforded by Article 10 of the Convention to journalists was subject to the proviso that they act in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the tenets of responsible journalism (ibid., § 90; see also, mutatis mutandis, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I; Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, §§ 61 and 63-68, 19 April 2011; and Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), nos.

• EGMR, 13.09.2022 - 15758/13

  TIMUR SHARIPOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously applied Article 10 of the Convention to the activity of gathering information by journalists, when it was an essential preparatory step in their work as "public watchdogs" in a democratic society (see Pentikäinen v. Finland [GC], no. 11882/10, § 83, ECHR 2015; Dammann v. Switzerland, no. 77551/01, § 52, 25 April 2006; Selmani and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 67259/14, § 61, 9 February 2017; Szurovecz v. Hungary, no. 15428/16, § 52, 8 October 2019; and Mándli and Others v. Hungary, no. 63164/16, § 45, 26 May 2020).
• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 57020/18

  REYES JIMENEZ c. ESPAGNE

  Elles ne seront donc pas examinées dans le présent arrêt (Mándli et autres c. Hongrie, no 63164/16, §§ 15-18, 26 mai 2020, Markus c. Lettonie, no 17483/10, § 63, 11 juin 2020, et Radomilja et autres c. Croatie [GC], nos 37685/10 et 22768/12, § 108, 20 mars 2018).