Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VERAART v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2006 - 10807/04

  The present case fell to be distinguished from that of Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, ECHR 2002-II: in that case the Court had held that the limits of acceptable criticism might in some circumstances be wider with regard to civil servants exercising their powers than in relation to private individuals.

  In this context, it has considered that lawyers' specific status gives them a central position in the administration of justice as intermediaries between the public and the courts, which explains both the usual restrictions on the conduct of members of the Bar and the monitoring and supervisory powers vested in the various Bar councils (see Casado Coca v. Spain, judgment of 24 February 1994, Series A no. 285-A, p. 21, § 54; and Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 45, ECHR 2002-II).

• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2006 - 10807/04

  Even so, 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 (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, §§ 42-43, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 51279/99

  Frankreich wegen Verletzung der Pressefreiheit zu Schadensersatz verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2006 - 10807/04

  It cannot be doubted that the applicant was entitled to make public statements in his clients' interest, even outside the courtroom, subject to the proviso that he was acting in good faith and in accordance with the ethics of the legal profession (compare, mutatis mutandis, Castells v. Spain, judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, p. 24, § 48; more recently, again mutatis mutandis, Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 65, ECHR 2002-V, and Steur v. the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 42-43).

 
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2006 - 10807/04

  The Court has stated the principles generally applicable as follows (see, among many other authorities, CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 88-91, ECHR 2004-XI, case-law references omitted):.
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2006 - 10807/04

  It cannot be doubted that the applicant was entitled to make public statements in his clients' interest, even outside the courtroom, subject to the proviso that he was acting in good faith and in accordance with the ethics of the legal profession (compare, mutatis mutandis, Castells v. Spain, judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, p. 24, § 48; more recently, again mutatis mutandis, Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 65, ECHR 2002-V, and Steur v. the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 42-43).
• EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 15450/89

  CASADO COCA v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2006 - 10807/04

  In this context, it has considered that lawyers' specific status gives them a central position in the administration of justice as intermediaries between the public and the courts, which explains both the usual restrictions on the conduct of members of the Bar and the monitoring and supervisory powers vested in the various Bar councils (see Casado Coca v. Spain, judgment of 24 February 1994, Series A no. 285-A, p. 21, § 54; and Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 45, ECHR 2002-II).

• EGMR, 23.04.2015 - 29369/10

  MORICE c. FRANCE

  That special role of lawyers, as independent professionals, in the administration of justice entails a number of duties, particularly with regard to their conduct (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70; Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 46, Series A no. 285-A; Steur v. the Netherlands, no. 39657/98, § 38, ECHR 2003-XI; Veraart v. the Netherlands, no. 10807/04, § 51, 30 November 2006; and Coutant v. France (dec.), no. 17155/03, 24 January 2008).
• EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 30687/05

  TUGLUK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  That special role of lawyers in the administration of justice entails a number of duties, particularly with regard to their conduct (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70; Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 46, Series A no. 285-A; Veraart v. the Netherlands, no. 10807/04, § 51, 30 November 2006; and Coutant v. France (dec.), no. 17155/03, 24 January 2008).
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 7877/03

  MYRSKYY v. UKRAINE

  In doing so, 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 themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298, and Veraart v. the Netherlands, no. 10807/04, § 61, 30 November 2006).