Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OOO 'VESTI' AND UKHOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal) Article 6-1 - Fair hearing Equality of arms) ...

Besprechungen u.ä.

• lehofer.at (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  "Gerüchtsberichterstattung": Art 10 EMRK ist kein Freibrief für die Verbreitung unbegründeter Gerüchte

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  OOO "Vesti" and Ukhov v. Russia

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 18.03.2010 - 21724/03
• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 21724/03

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 03.03.2000 - 35376/97

  KRCMAR AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 21724/03

  The principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms requires that each party be given a reasonable opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations made or evidence adduced by the other party and to present its case under conditions that do not place it at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis its opponent (see Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, § 39, 3 March 2000, and Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 21724/03

  However, it is not necessary to determine this issue because, under the Court's case-law, even a value judgment must be based on sufficient facts in order to constitute a fair comment under Article 10 (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 43, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 21724/03

  The Court reiterates that it is central to the concept of a fair trial, in civil as in criminal proceedings, that a litigant is not denied the opportunity to present his or her case effectively before the court and that he or she is able to enjoy equality of arms with the opposing side (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 59, ECHR 2005-II).

 
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 21724/03

  Whether such grounds exist depends in particular on the nature and degree of the defamation in question and the extent to which the media can reasonably regard their sources as reliable with respect to the allegations (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 67, ECHR 2007-..., and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 78, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 21724/03

  In so doing, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and, moreover, that they based their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see, among many others, Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, § 27, 21 July 2005; Stoll v. Switzerland [GC], no. 69698/01, § 101, ECHR 2007-V; Krasulya v. Russia, no. 12365/03, § 34, 22 February 2007, Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland [GC], no. 16354/06, § 48, 13 July 2012; and, most recently, Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 100, 22 April 2013).
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 21724/03

  Finally, it is relevant that when examining the claims against the second applicant, Judge S. was not sitting in a single-judge formation but was assisted by two lay assessors whose impartiality the applicants did not question (see, mutadis mutandis, Diennet v. France, 26 September 1995, § 38, Series A no. 325-A).
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 21724/03

  The principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms requires that each party be given a reasonable opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations made or evidence adduced by the other party and to present its case under conditions that do not place it at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis its opponent (see Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, § 39, 3 March 2000, and Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274).
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 21724/03

  As to the subjective test, the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see Padovani v. Italy, 26 February 1993, § 26, Series A no. 257-B).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 21724/03

  They were found civilly liable for that publication, therefore the impugned interference must be seen in the context of the essential role of the press in ensuring the proper functioning of a democratic society (see Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, § 41, and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 59, ECHR 1999-IV).

• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 27474/08

  PIROGOV c. RUSSIE

  Se référant aux arrêts Janowski c. Pologne ([GC], no 25716/94, CEDH 1999-I), Le?.ník c. Slovaquie (no 35640/97, CEDH 2003-IV), Novaya Gazeta et Borodyanskiy c. Russie (no 14087/08, 28 mars 2013), et OOO « Vesti'et Ukhov c. Russie (no 21724/03, 30 mai 2013), il expose que L.M., en tant que fonctionnaire, devait pouvoir s'acquitter de ses fonctions en bénéficiant de la confiance du public sans être indûment perturbé par des attaques verbales offensantes.
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 17221/13

  FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA (No. 4)

  The Government further argued that the domestic courts had duly balanced the applicant's rights under Article 10 of the Convention and the plaintiff's rights protected under Article 8. In that regard they relied, inter alia, on Keller v. Hungary ((dec.), no. 33352/02, 4 April 2006); Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France ([GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, ECHR 2007-IV); Pfeifer v. Austria (no. 12556/03, 15 November 2007); Vitrenko and Others v. Ukraine ((dec.), no. 23510/02, 16 December 2008); Alithia Publishing Company Ltd and Constantinides v. Cyprus (no. 17550/03, § 49, 22 May 2008); and OOO "Vesti" and Ukhov v. Russia (no. 21724/03, § 62, 30 May 2013).
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 7972/09

  FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA (No. 3)

  21279/02 and 36448/02, ECHR 2007-IV; Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, 15 November 2007; Vitrenko and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 23510/02, 16 December 2008; Alithia Publishing Company Ltd and Constantinides v. Cyprus, no. 17550/03, § 49, 22 May 2008; and OOO "Vesti" and Ukhov v. Russia, no. 21724/03, § 62, 30 May 2013).
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 17229/13

  FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA (No. 5)

  21279/02 and 36448/02, ECHR 2007-IV; Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, 15 November 2007; Vitrenko and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 23510/02, 16 December 2008; Alithia Publishing Company Ltd and Constantinides v. Cyprus, no. 17550/03, § 49, 22 May 2008; and OOO "Vesti" and Ukhov v. Russia, no. 21724/03, § 62, 30 May 2013).
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 7407/06

  SPROGE v. LATVIA

  The answer to this question depends on the circumstances and the special features of each particular case and may include: the nature and extent of the judge's functions during both sets of proceedings; whether in other sets of proceedings the judge has made statements which create an impression of a predetermined opinion in the proceedings; and whether the outcome of the proceeding was based on the evidence produced and arguments heard at the hearing (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July, cited above, §§ 78-80; Delage and Magistrello v. France (dec.), no. 40028/98, ECHR 2002-III; and, as a recent example, OOO "Vesti" and Ukhov v. Russia, no. 21724/03, § 79, 30 May 2013).