Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MONICA MACOVEI v. ROMANIA

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MACOVEI c. ROUMANIE

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

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (24)

• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2020 - 53028/14

  40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 108-13, ECHR 2012; Axel Springer AG, cited above, §§ 89-95, Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, §§ 165-66, ECHR 2017 (extracts); and Falzon v. Malta, no. 45791/13, § 55, 20 March 2018).

  40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 104-107, ECHR 2012).

  40660/08 and 60641/08, ECHR 2012; Axel Springer AG v. Germany (no. 2), no. 48311/10, 10 July 2014; Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, ECHR 2015; and Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2020 - 53028/14

  Accordingly, interferences with their freedom of expression call for the closest scrutiny on the part of the Court (see Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 42, Series A no. 236; Lombardo and Others v. Malta, no. 7333/06, § 53, 24 April 2007; and Lewandowska-Malec v. Poland, no. 39660/07, § 60, 18 September 2012).

  Accordingly, interferences with their freedom of expression call for the closest scrutiny on the part of the Court (see Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 42, Series A no. 236; Lombardo and Others v. Malta, no. 7333/06, § 53, 24 April 2007; and Lewandowska-Malec v. Poland, no. 39660/07, § 60, 18 September 2012)".

• EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 48311/10

  BILD-Artikel zu Gerhard Schröder und Gazprom zulässig

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2020 - 53028/14

  40660/08 and 60641/08, ECHR 2012; Axel Springer AG v. Germany (no. 2), no. 48311/10, 10 July 2014; Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, ECHR 2015; and Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2020 - 53028/14

  In this connection, the Court has already held that the manner in which a locally elected official carries out his or her official duties and issues touching on his or her personal integrity are matters of general interest to the community (see, mutatis mutandis, Soko?‚owski v. Poland, no. 75955/01, § 45, 29 March 2005; Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 51, 9 January 2007; and Paraskevopoulos, cited above, § 36) and that there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or debate on matters of public interest (see, among other authorities, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV; and Instytut Ekonomichnykh Reform, TOV v. Ukraine, no. 61561/08, § 44, 2 June 2016).
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 51744/99

  KWIECIEN v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2020 - 53028/14

  In this connection, the Court has already held that the manner in which a locally elected official carries out his or her official duties and issues touching on his or her personal integrity are matters of general interest to the community (see, mutatis mutandis, Soko?‚owski v. Poland, no. 75955/01, § 45, 29 March 2005; Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 51, 9 January 2007; and Paraskevopoulos, cited above, § 36) and that there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or debate on matters of public interest (see, among other authorities, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV; and Instytut Ekonomichnykh Reform, TOV v. Ukraine, no. 61561/08, § 44, 2 June 2016).
• EKMR, 10.03.1977 - 7238/75

  VAN LEUVEN and DE MEYER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2020 - 53028/14

  This principle guides the Court's case-law on Article 6. According to the established case-law, persons whose civil rights can be directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings have the right to be heard in the proceedings before the competent domestic court (see, in particular, the following judgments: Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, nos. 6878/75 and 7238/75, 23 June 1981, § 47, Series A no. 43; Deumeland v. Germany, no. 9384/81, 29 May 1986, § 77, Series A no. 100; Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, no. 12952/87, 23 June 1993, § 63, Series A no. 262; Kakamoukas and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 38311/02, § 32, 15 February 2008; López Guió v. Slovakia, no. 10280/12, § 102-106, 3 June 2014; Topallaj v. Albania, no. 32913/03, § 68, 21 April 2016; Ezgeta v. Croatia, no. 40562/12, § 33, 7 September 2017; Bursa Barosu Baskanligi and Others v. Turkey, no. 25680/05, § 128, 19 June 2018; and Sine Tsaggarakis A.E.E. v. Greece, no. 17257/13, § 40, 23 May 2019).
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 29751/09

  GHIULFER PREDESCU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2020 - 53028/14

  23145/93 and 25091/94, § 714, 13 November 2003), and even though the applicant has not shown whether or not she would struggle to pay the amounts required of her in order to comply with the last-instance court's judgment, the Court is of the view that, under the circumstances, the sanction imposed was capable of having a dissuasive effect on the exercise of her right to freedom of expression (see, for instance, Lombardo and Others, cited above, § 61; and Ghiulfer Predescu v. Romania, no. 29751/09, § 61, 27 June 2017).
• EGMR, 20.06.2019 - 7144/15

  A AND B v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2020 - 53028/14

  Procedural justice requires that all persons who may be directly affected by a decision be heard before that decision is rendered: audiatur et altera pars (see my separate opinions appended to the judgments in the cases of Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, 5 February 2015; and A and B v. Croatia, no. 7144/15, 20 June 2019; see also P. Pastor Vilanova, "Third Parties Involved in International Litigation Proceedings.
• EKMR, 30.06.1997 - 25091/94

  SAHiN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2020 - 53028/14

  23145/93 and 25091/94, § 714, 13 November 2003), and even though the applicant has not shown whether or not she would struggle to pay the amounts required of her in order to comply with the last-instance court's judgment, the Court is of the view that, under the circumstances, the sanction imposed was capable of having a dissuasive effect on the exercise of her right to freedom of expression (see, for instance, Lombardo and Others, cited above, § 61; and Ghiulfer Predescu v. Romania, no. 29751/09, § 61, 27 June 2017).
• EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87

  RUIZ-MATEOS c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2020 - 53028/14

  This principle guides the Court's case-law on Article 6. According to the established case-law, persons whose civil rights can be directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings have the right to be heard in the proceedings before the competent domestic court (see, in particular, the following judgments: Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, nos. 6878/75 and 7238/75, 23 June 1981, § 47, Series A no. 43; Deumeland v. Germany, no. 9384/81, 29 May 1986, § 77, Series A no. 100; Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, no. 12952/87, 23 June 1993, § 63, Series A no. 262; Kakamoukas and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 38311/02, § 32, 15 February 2008; López Guió v. Slovakia, no. 10280/12, § 102-106, 3 June 2014; Topallaj v. Albania, no. 32913/03, § 68, 21 April 2016; Ezgeta v. Croatia, no. 40562/12, § 33, 7 September 2017; Bursa Barosu Baskanligi and Others v. Turkey, no. 25680/05, § 128, 19 June 2018; and Sine Tsaggarakis A.E.E. v. Greece, no. 17257/13, § 40, 23 May 2019).
• EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 61561/08

  INSTYTUT EKONOMICHNYKH REFORM, TOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE
• EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 32913/03

  TOPALLAJ v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 29.05.1986 - 9384/81

  Deumeland ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 23145/93

  ELÇI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 25680/05

  BURSA BAROSU BASKANLIGI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 28396/95

  Nichtberufung eines liechtensteiner Richters in das Amt des Gerichtspräsidenten …
• EGMR, 23.05.2019 - 17257/13

  SINE TSAGGARAKIS A.E.E. c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 19657/12

  FRISK AND JENSEN v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 64184/11

  PARASKEVOPOULOS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 19382/08

  LYKIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 47238/19

  ALMEIDA ARROJA v. PORTUGAL

  In particular, the mere fact of a criminal sanction is by itself capable of having a dissuasive effect, even if the sum involved is moderate and the person is easily able to pay (see Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 176, ECHR 2015; Monica Macovei v. Romania, no. 53028/14, § 96, 28 July 2020; and Anatoliy Yeremenko v. Ukraine, no. 22287/08, § 107, 15 September 2022).
• EGMR, 21.03.2024 - 10103/20

  SIEC OBYWATELSKA WATCHDOG POLSKA v. POLAND

  I have explained my objections to this approach in the above-mentioned dissenting opinion, point 7 (compare also my concurring opinions in the cases of Makraduli v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos. 64659/11 and 24133/13, 19 July 2018, points 8-9, and Monica Macovei v. Romania, no. 53028/14, 28 July 2020, point 4).
• EGMR, 18.11.2021 - 27801/12

  MARINONI c. ITALIE

  « In exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the Court must look at the impugned interference in the light of the case as a whole, including the status of the applicant and that of the plaintiff in the domestic proceedings, the content of the critical comments held against the applicant, as well as the context and the manner in which they were made public (see Lykin v. Ukraine, no. 19382/08, § 25, 12 January 2017; and Makraduli, cited above, § 62), bearing in mind that assertions about matters of public interest may, on that basis, constitute value judgments rather than statements of fact (see Makraduli, cited above, § 62) and that an applicant clearly involved in a public debate on an important issue is required to fulfill a no more demanding standard than that of due diligence as in such circumstances an obligation to prove the factual statements may deprive him or her of the protection afforded by Article 10 (see Makraduli, cited above, § 75, with further references) (Monica Macovei c. Roumanie, 53028/14, 28/07/2020, par.

 
• EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 34496/19

  AVDZHIYSKI v. BULGARIA

  The general principles developed by the Court in that regard have been summarised, among others, in Monica Macovei v. Romania (no. 53028/14, §§ 72-81, 28 July 2020).
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 67369/16

  RADIO BROADCASTING COMPANY B92 AD v. SERBIA

  Reiterating its view on the chilling effect that a fear of sanction may have on the exercise of freedom of expression (see, mutatis mutandis, Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, § 50, ECHR 1999-VII, and Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 54, ECHR 2002-II), and even though the applicant company has not shown whether or not it struggled to pay the amounts required in order to comply with the courts' judgments, the Court is of the view that, under the circumstances, the sanction imposed was capable of having a dissuasive effect on the exercise of the applicant company's right to freedom of expression (see, for instance and mutatis mutandis, Monica Macovei v. Romania, no. 53028/14, § 96, 28 July 2020, and Stancu and Others v. Romania, no. 22953/16, § 148, 18 October 2022, and the authorities cited therein).
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 84048/17

  EIGIRDAS AND VĮ "DEMOKRATIJOS PLETROS FONDAS" v. LITHUANIA

  In this context, the Court takes the view that the applicants' allegations and, in particular, the expressions used, albeit perhaps inappropriately strong, could be viewed as polemical, involving a certain degree of exaggeration (see Monica Macovei v. Romania, no. 53028/14, § 92, 28 July 2020).
• EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 39650/18

  ZUREK v. POLAND

  I have already expressed doubts about the idea that some categories of public persons should enjoy a better protected freedom of speech than other citizens (see, in particular, my separate opinions in the cases of Makraduli v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos. 64659/11 and 24133/13, 19 July 2018, points 8 and 9, and Monica Macovei v. Romania, no. 53028/14, 28 July 2020, point 4).
• EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 62639/12

  DIMITRIOU c. GRÈCE

  Dans le contexte d'un litige entre le requérant et E.K., la Cour a décidé de statuer sans entendre au préalable E.K., alors que son arrêt touche entre autres au droit de ce dernier à la protection de sa réputation et remet complètement en cause la protection qui lui avait été accordée par les juridictions nationales (voir, en comparaison, mon opinion séparée jointe à l'arrêt Monica Macovei c. Roumanie, no 53028/14, 28 juillet 2020).
• EGMR, 09.11.2021 - 44414/12

  ALEKSANDROV v. RUSSIA

  In view of the limited scope of their reasoning in this respect, the Court is not persuaded by their approach (see Monica Macovei v. Romania, no. 53028/14, § 88, 28 July 2020) as the first-instance court omitted to consider certain essential elements: it disregarded the fact that the pre-investigation inquiry had been resumed by the date of the delivery of its judgment in the defamation proceedings (see paragraph 16 above) thus failing to base itself on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Nadtoka v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29097/08, § 50, 8 October 2019); it did not assess whether it represented a value judgment not susceptible of proof rather than statements of fact (see CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 98, ECHR 2004-XI); it did not take into account the claimant's position as a chair of an electoral commission (see Redaktsiya Gazety Zemlyaki v. Russia, no. 16224/05, § 42, 21 November 2017) or of the applicant's position as a member of the Tambov City Duma and thus an elected representative of the people (see Rashkin v. Russia, no. 69575/10, § 15, 7 July 2020); and it did not consider that the interview had touched upon a matter of public interest (see Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 3), no. 7972/09, § 47, 2 October 2018) even though the claimant's conduct in his capacity of the chair of an electoral commission was clearly of legitimate concern to the general public (compare Monica Macovei, cited above, § 86).