Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DZHAVADOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 10 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 26229/95

  GAWEDA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 30160/04

  Although Article 10 does not in terms prohibit the imposition of prior restraints on publications, the relevant law must provide a clear indication of the circumstances when such restraints are permissible, especially when they are to block publication of a periodical completely (see Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 40, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 37096/97

  KARADEMIRCI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 30160/04

  The exercise of the freedoms enshrined in paragraph 1 of Article 10, including the freedom to impart information, may be subject to certain "formalities" or "conditions" (see Karademirci and Others v. Turkey, nos. 37096/97 and 37101/97, § 40, ECHR 2005-I).
• EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 75615/01

  STEFANEC c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 30160/04

  A norm cannot be regarded as a "law" unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the person to regulate his conduct: he must be able - if need be with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see, among others, Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-III; Goussev and Marenk v. Finland, no. 35083/97, § 53, 17 January 2006; and Stefanec v. the Czech Republic, no. 75615/01, § 44, 18 July 2006).

 
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 30160/04

  The dangers inherent in prior restraints call for the most careful scrutiny (see Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, p. 30, § 60).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 22479/93

  ÖZTÜRK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 30160/04

  Article 10 protects not only the substance of information and ideas but also the means of their dissemination since any restriction on the means necessarily interferes with the right to receive and impart information (see Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 49, ECHR 1999-VI).
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 10890/84

  GROPPERA RADIO AG ET AUTRES c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 30160/04

  The degree of precision depends, to a considerable extent, on the content of the instrument at issue, the field it is designed to cover, and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed (see Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 173, p. 26, § 68).

• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 41298/21

  LÉOTARD c. FRANCE

  En outre, si elle a déclaré son moyen relatif au défaut d'examen de sa demande d'annulation de la procédure pour dépassement du délai raisonnable irrecevable en application de l'article 385 alinéa 5 du code de procédure pénale (paragraphe 77 ci-dessus), elle a cependant jugé qu'une telle demande ne pouvait prospérer en rappelant sa jurisprudence selon laquelle le dépassement du délai raisonnable de jugement est sans incidence sur la validité des procédures (paragraphes 60 et 69 ci-dessus): même si elle a qualifié cette partie de son raisonnement de surabondant, elle a cependant ainsi examiné ce moyen de cassation tiré de la violation de l'article 6 § 1 et a, aux yeux de la Cour, également motivé son rejet sur le terrain du défaut de fondement (comparer avec Église métropolitaine de Bessarabie et autres c. Moldova (déc.), no 45701/99, 7 juin 2001, Djavadov c. Russie, no 30160/04, § 27, 27 septembre 2007, Voggenreiter c. Allemagne (déc.), no 47169/99, 28 novembre 2002, Vladimir Romanov, précité, § 52, et Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT), précité, §§ 43 et 45).
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 19938/20

  Q AND R v. SLOVENIA

  Indeed, they provided the domestic authorities with the opportunity to put right the alleged violation (see, mutatis mutandis, Dzhavadov v. Russia, no. 30160/04, § 27, 27 September 2007, and Skalka v. Poland (dec.), no. 43425/98, 3 October 2002).
• EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1758/02

  KAZAKOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court further reiterates that the scope of the notion of foreseeability depends to a considerable degree on the content of the text in issue, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed (see, among others, Dzhavadov v. Russia, no. 30160/04, § 36, 27 September 2007).