Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOKOLOWSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses - claim dismissed (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 75955/01
• EGMR, 29.03.2005 - 75955/01

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2005 - 75955/01

  Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no "democratic society" (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 23, § 49 and Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 26, § 37).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2005 - 75955/01

  The test of "necessity in a democratic society" requires the Court to determine whether the "interference" complained of corresponded to a "pressing social need", whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify it are relevant and sufficient (see the Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 38, § 62).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2005 - 75955/01

  Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no "democratic society" (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 23, § 49 and Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 26, § 37).

 
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2005 - 75955/01

  This power of appreciation is not, however, unlimited but goes hand in hand with a European supervision by the Court, whose task it is to give a final ruling on whether a restriction is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 (see, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 58, ECHR 1999-III, and Cumpana and Mazare v. Romania [GC], judgment of 17 December 2004, no. 33348/95, § 88).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2005 - 75955/01

  The requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment was impossible to fulfil and it infringed freedom of opinion itself, which was a fundamental part of the right secured by Article 10 (see, for instance, Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, p. 27, § 63.).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2005 - 75955/01

  Moreover, the Court recalls that even where a statement amounts to a value judgment, the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether there exists a sufficient factual basis for the impugned statement, since even a value judgment without any factual basis to support it may be excessive (Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 43, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2005 - 75955/01

  According to the Court's well-established case-law, there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on debate of questions of public interest (see, mutatis mutandis, among many other authorities, Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, § 42; Castells v. Spain, judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, § 43).
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2005 - 75955/01

  Lastly, the Court recalls that when assessing the proportionality of the interference, the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are also factors to be taken into account (see Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 49, ECHR 1999-IV; Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, 27 May 2003, § 41-42; Cumpana and Mazare v. Romania, no. 33348/96, 17 December 2004, §§ 111-124).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94

  CEYLAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2005 - 75955/01

  Lastly, the Court recalls that when assessing the proportionality of the interference, the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are also factors to be taken into account (see Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 49, ECHR 1999-IV; Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, 27 May 2003, § 41-42; Cumpana and Mazare v. Romania, no. 33348/96, 17 December 2004, §§ 111-124).
• EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11508/85

  BARFOD c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2005 - 75955/01

  When doing so, the Court must look at the impugned interference in the light of the case as a whole, including the content of the article and the context in which it was diffused (the Barfod v. Denmark judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149, § 28).

• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 39900/06

  Semik-Orzech ./. Polen

  The approach taken by the courts is therefore compatible with freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention (contrast Sokolowski v. Poland, no. 75955/01, § 46, 29 March 2005; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, §§ 29 and 30, 5 October 2006; and Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, §§ 42 and 43, 14 December 2006).