Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 36658/18 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ZHABLYANOV v. BULGARIA
Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
ZHABLYANOV v. BULGARIA
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (46)
- EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91
Radikalenerlaß
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 36658/18
(j) dismissals of civil servants (see Haseldine v. the United Kingdom, no. 18957/91, Commission decision of 13 May 1992, Decisions and Reports (DR) 73, p. 225; Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 44, Series A no. 323; Petersen v. Germany (dec.), no. 39793/98, 22 November 2001; Volkmer v. Germany (dec.), no. 39799/98, 22 November 2001; De Diego Nafría v. Spain, no. 46833/99, § 30, 14 March 2002; Kern v. Germany (dec.), no. 26870/04, 29 May 2007; Langner v. Germany, no. 14464/11, § 39, 17 September 2015; Karapetyan and Others v. Armenia, no. 59001/08, § 36, 17 November 2016; and Catalan v. Romania, no. 13003/04, § 44, 9 January 2018);.The historical experience of the Contracting State concerned is of considerable importance when assessing whether an interference with the right to freedom of expression was necessary (see Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, §§ 51 and 59, Series A no. 323; Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, §§ 41 and 47, ECHR 1999-III; Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos.
- EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 42461/13
KARÁCSONY ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 36658/18
In any event, rules intended to ensure the orderly functioning of a parliament inevitably comport an element of vagueness and are subject to interpretation in parliamentary practice (see Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 126, 17 May 2016).Although entailing a reduction in pay, it cannot be equated to the loss of a stable job and of one's livelihood (see Vogt, § 60; Fuentes Bobo, § 49; and Heinisch, § 91, all cited above), to a disciplinary sanction imposed on a member of parliament (see Szél and Others v. Hungary, no. 44357/13, § 84, 16 September 2014), let alone to an order to pay damages (see Rashkin v. Russia, no. 69575/10, § 19, 7 July 2020; Kiliçdaroglu v. Turkey, no. 16558/18, § 66, 27 October 2020; and Marinoni v. Italy, no. 27801/12, § 82, 18 November 2021), to a lifting of parliamentary immunity opening the way to a criminal prosecution (see Selahattin Demirta?Ÿ, cited above, §§ 246-47, and Kerestecioglu Demir v. Turkey, no. 68136/16, § 67, 4 May 2021), or to serious punitive measures such as a criminal conviction (see Lehideux and Isorni, § 57, and Wojczuk, § 105, both cited above), a criminal fine (see Soulas and Others v. France, no. 15948/03, § 46, 10 July 2008; Orban and Others v. France, no. 20985/05, § 53, 15 January 2009; and ? imunic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20373/17, § 47, 22 January 2019), a criminal fine convertible into imprisonment (see Nix v. Germany (dec.).
- EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72
HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 36658/18
From the outset, I would like to emphasise that this Court famously held in Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24) that freedom of expression constitutes "one of the essential foundations of [a democratic] society" and "is applicable not only to "information' or "ideas' that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population." To give effect to this understanding of freedom of expression in the context of political speech or debate on questions of public interest, the Court made clear in Perinçek v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 204, 206 and 280, ECHR 2015 (extracts)) that no restrictions or penalties should be imposed on speech unless it could be regarded as a direct or indirect call to violence or as a justification of violence, hatred or intolerance.
- EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 16558/18
KILIÇDAROGLU v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 36658/18
Although entailing a reduction in pay, it cannot be equated to the loss of a stable job and of one's livelihood (see Vogt, § 60; Fuentes Bobo, § 49; and Heinisch, § 91, all cited above), to a disciplinary sanction imposed on a member of parliament (see Szél and Others v. Hungary, no. 44357/13, § 84, 16 September 2014), let alone to an order to pay damages (see Rashkin v. Russia, no. 69575/10, § 19, 7 July 2020; Kiliçdaroglu v. Turkey, no. 16558/18, § 66, 27 October 2020; and Marinoni v. Italy, no. 27801/12, § 82, 18 November 2021), to a lifting of parliamentary immunity opening the way to a criminal prosecution (see Selahattin Demirta?Ÿ, cited above, §§ 246-47, and Kerestecioglu Demir v. Turkey, no. 68136/16, § 67, 4 May 2021), or to serious punitive measures such as a criminal conviction (see Lehideux and Isorni, § 57, and Wojczuk, § 105, both cited above), a criminal fine (see Soulas and Others v. France, no. 15948/03, § 46, 10 July 2008; Orban and Others v. France, no. 20985/05, § 53, 15 January 2009; and ? imunic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20373/17, § 47, 22 January 2019), a criminal fine convertible into imprisonment (see Nix v. Germany (dec.). - EGMR, 16.07.2020 - 63782/11
ROMANOV v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 36658/18
It has also noted that the systematic terror applied to consolidate communist rule in those countries remains a serious scar in the mind and heart of Europe (see Vajnai v. Hungary, no. 33629/06, § 57, ECHR 2008), and recently observed that any attempt, even if only potential, to perpetuate the policies of those regimes would seriously affect the rule of law and the foundations of democracy (see Ignatencu and the Romanian Communist Party v. Romania, no. 78635/13, §§ 99-100 and 103, 5 May 2020, and compare with the circumstances in Romanov v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 63782/11, §§ 159 and 163, 6 July 2020). - EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 64496/17
WILLIAMSON v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 36658/18
no. 35285/16, § 55, 13 March 2018; Williamson v. Germany (dec.), no. 64496/17, § 27 in fine, 8 January 2019; and Bonnet v. France (dec.), no. 35364/19, §§ 56-58, 25 January 2022), a suspended custodial sentence (see Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, § 83, 28 August 2018, and Pastörs, cited above, § 48), or an effective custodial sentence (see Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, § 103, 22 April 2010, and Rouillan v. France, no. 28000/19, §§ 74-75, 23 June 2022). - EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 69575/10
RASHKIN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 36658/18
Although entailing a reduction in pay, it cannot be equated to the loss of a stable job and of one's livelihood (see Vogt, § 60; Fuentes Bobo, § 49; and Heinisch, § 91, all cited above), to a disciplinary sanction imposed on a member of parliament (see Szél and Others v. Hungary, no. 44357/13, § 84, 16 September 2014), let alone to an order to pay damages (see Rashkin v. Russia, no. 69575/10, § 19, 7 July 2020; Kiliçdaroglu v. Turkey, no. 16558/18, § 66, 27 October 2020; and Marinoni v. Italy, no. 27801/12, § 82, 18 November 2021), to a lifting of parliamentary immunity opening the way to a criminal prosecution (see Selahattin Demirta?Ÿ, cited above, §§ 246-47, and Kerestecioglu Demir v. Turkey, no. 68136/16, § 67, 4 May 2021), or to serious punitive measures such as a criminal conviction (see Lehideux and Isorni, § 57, and Wojczuk, § 105, both cited above), a criminal fine (see Soulas and Others v. France, no. 15948/03, § 46, 10 July 2008; Orban and Others v. France, no. 20985/05, § 53, 15 January 2009; and ? imunic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20373/17, § 47, 22 January 2019), a criminal fine convertible into imprisonment (see Nix v. Germany (dec.). - EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 15948/03
SOULAS ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 36658/18
Although entailing a reduction in pay, it cannot be equated to the loss of a stable job and of one's livelihood (see Vogt, § 60; Fuentes Bobo, § 49; and Heinisch, § 91, all cited above), to a disciplinary sanction imposed on a member of parliament (see Szél and Others v. Hungary, no. 44357/13, § 84, 16 September 2014), let alone to an order to pay damages (see Rashkin v. Russia, no. 69575/10, § 19, 7 July 2020; Kiliçdaroglu v. Turkey, no. 16558/18, § 66, 27 October 2020; and Marinoni v. Italy, no. 27801/12, § 82, 18 November 2021), to a lifting of parliamentary immunity opening the way to a criminal prosecution (see Selahattin Demirta?Ÿ, cited above, §§ 246-47, and Kerestecioglu Demir v. Turkey, no. 68136/16, § 67, 4 May 2021), or to serious punitive measures such as a criminal conviction (see Lehideux and Isorni, § 57, and Wojczuk, § 105, both cited above), a criminal fine (see Soulas and Others v. France, no. 15948/03, § 46, 10 July 2008; Orban and Others v. France, no. 20985/05, § 53, 15 January 2009; and ? imunic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20373/17, § 47, 22 January 2019), a criminal fine convertible into imprisonment (see Nix v. Germany (dec.). - EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 28000/19
ROUILLAN c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 36658/18
no. 35285/16, § 55, 13 March 2018; Williamson v. Germany (dec.), no. 64496/17, § 27 in fine, 8 January 2019; and Bonnet v. France (dec.), no. 35364/19, §§ 56-58, 25 January 2022), a suspended custodial sentence (see Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, § 83, 28 August 2018, and Pastörs, cited above, § 48), or an effective custodial sentence (see Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, § 103, 22 April 2010, and Rouillan v. France, no. 28000/19, §§ 74-75, 23 June 2022). - EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08
FÁBER v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 10.06.2021 - 45487/17
NORWEGIAN CONFEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS (LO) AND NORWEGIAN TRANSPORT WORKERS' …
- EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 40984/07
FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 18.11.2021 - 27801/12
MARINONI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73
AIREY v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 20985/05
ORBAN ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 73604/01
Monnat / Schweiz "L´honneur perdu de la Suisse"
- EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 20373/17
SIMUNIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 15.04.2012 - 29520/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 10692/09
SAVVA TERENTYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.05.2020 - 78635/13
IGNATENCU ET LE PARTI COMMUNISTE ROUMAIN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65
DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 04.05.2021 - 68136/16
KERESTECIOGLU DEMIR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74
ARTICO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 5869/17
ERKIZIA ALMANDOZ c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 35364/19
BONNET c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 35943/10
VONA v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 28396/95
Nichtberufung eines liechtensteiner Richters in das Amt des Gerichtspräsidenten …
- EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77
PRETTO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14
Udo Pastörs: Holocaust-Leugnung ist in Europa kein Menschenrecht
- EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81
MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97
STES COLAS EST AND OTHERS v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 36391/16
PORCHET c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 28.08.1986 - 9228/80
GLASENAPP c. ALLEMAGNE
- EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 25239/13
Holocaust-Leugnung: Dieudonné gescheitert
- EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 74613/01
Rechtssache J. gegen DEUTSCHLAND
- EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 26629/95
WITOLD LITWA c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 28.08.1986 - 9704/82
KOSIEK c. ALLEMAGNE
- EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 28274/08
Heinisch ./. Deutschland - Verletzung der Meinungsfreiheit bei Kündigung eines …
- EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80
VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 14277/04
GUJA v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88
NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY
- EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77
VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 8273/78
Axen ./. Deutschland
- EGMR, 06.10.2011 - 50425/06
SOROS c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84
MÜLLER AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND
- EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71
Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland