Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GUJA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (No. 2)

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GUJA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

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

Papierfundstellen

• NJW 2019, 1273

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (19)

• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  MOREIRA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 1085/10

  Thus, the question of whether the applicant's second dismissal was compatible with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention can be examined separately from the aspects relating to the execution of the judgment delivered by the Court on 12 February 2008 (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 54, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96

  EGMEZ c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 1085/10

  The Court's case-law indicates that the determination of the existence of a "new issue" very much depends on the specific circumstances of a given case, and that distinctions between cases are not always clear-cut (see Bochan (no. 2), cited above, § 34, and, for an examination of the case-law, see Egmez v. Cyprus, no. 30873/96, § 54, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 1085/10

  The interest which the public may have in particular information can sometimes be so strong as to override even a legally imposed duty of confidence (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, ECHR 1999-I, and Radio Twist, a.s. v. Slovakia, no. 62202/00, ECHR 2006-XV).

 
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 1085/10

  It is open to the competent State authorities to adopt measures intended to react appropriately and without excess to defamatory accusations devoid of foundation or formulated in bad faith (see Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 46, Series A no. 236).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 1085/10

  The Court reiterates that there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on debate on questions of public interest (see, among other authorities, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 62202/00

  RADIO TWIST A.S. v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 1085/10

  The interest which the public may have in particular information can sometimes be so strong as to override even a legally imposed duty of confidence (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, ECHR 1999-I, and Radio Twist, a.s. v. Slovakia, no. 62202/00, ECHR 2006-XV).
• EKMR, 03.05.1988 - 11389/85

  MORISSENS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 1085/10

  Moreover, freedom of expression carries with it duties and responsibilities and any person who chooses to disclose information must carefully verify, to the extent permitted by the circumstances, that it is accurate and reliable (see, mutatis mutandis, Morissens v. Belgium, no. 11389/85, Commission decision of 3 May 1988, DR 56, p. 127, and Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12945/87

  HADJIANASTASSIOU v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 1085/10

  On the other side of the scales, the Court must weigh the damage, if any, suffered by the public authority as a result of the disclosure in question and assess whether such damage outweighed the interest of the public in having the information revealed (see, mutatis mutandis, Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, 16 December 1992, § 45, Series A no. 252, and Stoll, cited above, § 130).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 1085/10

  41561/07 and 20972/08, § 56, 18 October 2011, and Bochan v. Ukraine (no.2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 33, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 29157/09

  LIU v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 1085/10

  Measures taken by a respondent State to remedy a violation found by the Court which raise a new issue undecided by the original judgment fall within the Court's jurisdiction and, as such, form the subject of a new application that may be dealt with by the Court (see Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, 26 July 2011; Emre v. Switzerland (no. 2), no. 5056/10, 11 October 2011; Egmez (no. 2), cited above, § 52; and Bochan (no. 2), cited above, § 36; see also Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003-IV, with references to Pailot v. France, 22 April 1998, § 57, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II; Leterme v. France, 29 April 1998, Reports 1998-III; Rando v. Italy, no. 38498/97, § 17, 15 February 2000).
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 41561/07

  THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN - PIRIN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 5056/10

  Emre ./. Schweiz
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 69190/01

  KRCMAR et AUTRES contre la REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 27569/02

  FRANZ FISCHER contre l'AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 71386/10

  SAVRIDDIN DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 12214/07

  EGMEZ v. CYPRUS

• SG Duisburg, 07.10.2010 - S 5 AS 3308/10

  Grundsicherung für Arbeitssuchende

  Der Umzug ist auch notwendig im Sinne von § 22 Abs. 3 S. 2 SGB II. Durch die Eigenbedarfskündigung des Vermieters (vgl. hierzu LSG NRW, Beschluss v. 3.9.2010 - 1085/10 B ER unter www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de) haben die Antragstellerin und ihre Familie keine Möglichkeit in ihrer bisherigen Wohnung dauerhaft zu verbleiben oder die Zeit auf eine andere Wohnung zu warten.
• EGMR, 15.11.2022 - 43744/17

  POIENARU c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour observe d'emblée que les juridictions nationales saisies par le requérant n'ont pas indiqué précisément quels étaient les propos qui lui étaient reprochés (paragraphe 8 ci-dessus), ni examiné dans quelle mesure il pouvait bénéficier de la protection des donneurs d'alerte agents de la fonction publique, en vertu de la loi no 571/2004, invoquée par l'intéressé (paragraphe 7 ci-dessus) (Guja c. République de Moldova (no 2), no 1085/10, §§ 59-60, 27 février 2018).