Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAVENKO (LIMONOV) v. RUSSIA

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 05.06.2008 - 15909/06

  I AVGI PUBLISHING AND PRESS AGENCY S.A. AND KARIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 29088/08

  In these circumstances, the Court finds that a high award of damages to the Moscow mayor did not pursue a "pressing social need" (compare I Avgi Publishing and Press Agency S.A. and Karis v. Greece, no. 15909/06, § 35, 5 June 2008).
• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 29088/08

  Such forms of expression allow for a greater degree of exaggeration and cannot be held to the same standard of accuracy as written assertions (see Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06 and 3 others, § 73, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 55120/00

  INDEPENDENT NEWS AND MEDIA AND INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS IRELAND LIMITED v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 29088/08

  Accordingly, the essential question to be answered is whether, having regard to the size of the award, there were adequate and effective domestic safeguards, at first instance and on appeal, against disproportionate awards which assured a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the award and the injury to reputation (see Independent News and Media and Independent Newspapers Ireland Limited v. Ireland, no. 55120/00, §§ 110-113, ECHR 2005-V (extracts), and Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, §§ 48-51, Series A no. 316-B).

 
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 29088/08

  It reiterates that unpredictably large awards in defamation cases are considered capable of having a chilling effect on the freedom of expression and therefore require the most careful scrutiny (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 64, ECHR 1999-III, and Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, § 71, 19 April 2011).
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  KASABOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 29088/08

  It reiterates that unpredictably large awards in defamation cases are considered capable of having a chilling effect on the freedom of expression and therefore require the most careful scrutiny (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 64, ECHR 1999-III, and Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, § 71, 19 April 2011).
• EGMR, 19.04.2018 - 41841/12

  OTTAN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 29088/08

  As regards the form and contents of the statement, the Court notes that it was the applicant's reaction in the context of an oral exchange during a live radio broadcast, so that he had no possibility of reformulating, refining or retracting it before it was made public (compare Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, no. 39293/98, § 46, 29 February 2000, and Ottan v. France, no. 41841/12, § 69, 19 April 2018).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 29088/08

  The requirements of the protection of a politician's reputation have to be weighed against the interests of open discussion of political issues (see Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), 23 May 1991, § 59, Series A no. 204) but the domestic courts did not perform any such balancing exercise in the instant case.
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 29088/08

  Accordingly, the essential question to be answered is whether, having regard to the size of the award, there were adequate and effective domestic safeguards, at first instance and on appeal, against disproportionate awards which assured a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the award and the injury to reputation (see Independent News and Media and Independent Newspapers Ireland Limited v. Ireland, no. 55120/00, §§ 110-113, ECHR 2005-V (extracts), and Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, §§ 48-51, Series A no. 316-B).