Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAC TV S.R.O. v. SLOVAKIA

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MAC TV S.R.O. v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 13466/12

  In this connection, the Court is mindful that journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 38, Series A no. 313, and Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 13466/12

  In this connection, the Court is mindful that journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 38, Series A no. 313, and Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 13466/12

  The general principles concerning the necessity of an interference with freedom of expression, which have been frequently reaffirmed by the Court since the case of Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, Series A no. 24), were summarised, for example, in Stoll v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 69698/01, § 101, ECHR 2007-V) and reiterated more recently in Morice v. France ([GC], no. 29369/10, § 124, ECHR 2015); Pentikäinen v. Finland ([GC], no. 11882/10, §§ 87-88, ECHR 2015); Bédat v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, 29 March 2016; and Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 131, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 13466/12

  Unlike the latter, the former inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large, and he must consequently display a greater degree of tolerance (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 46, ECHR 2007-IV, and Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, § 117, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 25200/11

  DICKINSON c. TURQUIE

  Elle rappelle en outre que ceux qui créent, interprètent, diffusent ou exposent une ?“uvre d'art contribuent à l'échange d'idées et d'opinions indispensable à une société démocratique - d'où l'obligation, pour l'État, de ne pas empiéter indûment sur leur liberté d'expression (voir, entre autres, Vereinigung Bildender Künstler c. Autriche, no 68354/01, § 26, 25 janvier 2007, et Müller, précité, §§ 32-33) - et que les formes d'expression artistique et de commentaire social telles que la satire, de par l'exagération et la déformation de la réalité qui les caractérisent, et par l'emploi d'un ton ironique et sarcastique visent naturellement à provoquer et à agiter (voir, mutatis mutandis, Vereinigung Bildender Künstler, précité, § 33 et MAC TV s.r.o. c. Slovaquie, no 13466/12, § 50, 28 novembre 2017).
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 43351/12

  OOO INFORMATSIONNOYE AGENTSTVO TAMBOV-INFORM v. RUSSIA

  However, faced with the domestic courts" failure to provide relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the "interference" the Court finds that they cannot be said to have applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention or to have based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see, with further references, Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, § 24, 26 January 2017, and MAC TV s.r.o. v. Slovakia, no. 13466/12, §§ 53-58, 28 November 2017).