Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 25968/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,55036
EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 25968/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,55036)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 31.07.2007 - 25968/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,55036)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 31. Juli 2007 - 25968/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,55036)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,55036) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

    SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 25968/02
    The Court reiterates in this connection that it has been its constant approach to require very strong reasons for justifying restrictions on political speech, as broad restrictions imposed in individual cases would undoubtedly affect respect for the freedom of expression in general in the State concerned (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
  • EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 38432/97

    THOMA v. LUXEMBOURG

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 25968/02
    Thus, in a freedom-of-expression case against Luxembourg, the Court noted the size of the country as a special feature to be taken into account, before accepting that the claimants in the defamation action were easily identifiable to listeners even though they had not been mentioned by name in the applicant's radio programme (see Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 56, ECHR 2001-III).
  • EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

    FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 25968/02
    The Court reiterates in this connection that it has been its constant approach to require very strong reasons for justifying restrictions on political speech, as broad restrictions imposed in individual cases would undoubtedly affect respect for the freedom of expression in general in the State concerned (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
  • EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

    SCHARSACH ET NEWS VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 25968/02
    However, since under the Court's case-law a value judgment must be based on sufficient facts in order to constitute a fair comment under Article 10, the difference between a value judgment and a statement of fact finally lies in the degree of factual proof which has to be established (see Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 40, ECHR 2003-XI).
  • EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 62202/00

    RADIO TWIST A.S. v. SLOVAKIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 25968/02
    Not only would that result in an excessive and disproportionate burden being placed on the media, straining their resources and involving them in endless litigation, it would also inevitably have a chilling effect on the press in the performance of its task of purveyor of information and public watchdog (see, mutatis mutandis, Radio Twist, A.S. v. Slovakia, no. 62202/00, § 53, ECHR 2006-...).
  • EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

    Oberschlick ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 25968/02
    It has to satisfy itself that the Russian authorities did apply standards which were in conformity with these principles and, moreover, that in doing so they based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, p. 26, § 60).
  • EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

    CASTELLS v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 25968/02
    In particular, it gives politicians the opportunity to reflect and comment on the preoccupations of public opinion; it thus enables everyone to participate in the free political debate which is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society (see Castells v. Spain, judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, p. 23, § 43 in fine).
  • EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

    JERSILD v. DENMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 25968/02
    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, 08.07.1999 - 23927/94

    SÜREK AND ÖZDEMIR v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 25968/02
    The Court notes that the open letter concerned the possibility of conducting an open and unhindered public discussion on the issues that inconvenienced the regional authorities, that is, the possibility for the regional press to play the role essential for ensuring the proper functioning of a political democracy (see Sürek and Özdemir v. Turkey [GC], nos. 23927/94 and 24277/94, § 58, 8 July 1999).
  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

    HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 25968/02
    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, 14.10.2021 - 34159/17

    M.L. v. SLOVAKIA

    It reiterates that even a value judgment must be based on sufficient facts in order to constitute a fair comment under Article 10 and that the difference between a value judgment and a statement of fact finally lies in the degree of factual proof which has to be established (see, for example, Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 40, ECHR 2003-XI, and Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 48, 31 July 2007).
  • EGMR - 2091/22 (anhängig)

    TRNKA v. SLOVAKIA

    Has there been a violation of the applicant's right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention (see Lopes Gomes da Silva v. Portugal, no. 37698/97, § 33, ECHR 2000-X; Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, §§ 83, 85 and 86, ECHR 2001-VIII; Brasilier v. France, no. 71343/01, § 36 and 37, 11 April 2006; Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 49, 31 July 2007, with a further reference; and Lacroix v. France, no. 41519/12, § 40, 7 September 2017)?.
  • EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 9406/05

    KUNITSYNA v. RUSSIA

    The Court has on many occasions pinpointed the structural deficiency of the Russian law on defamation, as interpreted and applied at the relevant time, which made no distinction between value judgments and statements of fact, referring uniformly to "information" ("svedeniya"), and proceeded on the assumption that any such "information" was susceptible to proof in civil proceedings (see Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, § 29, 21 July 2005; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 29, 5 October 2006; Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 38, 14 December 2006; Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 47, 31 July 2007; Fedchenko v. Russia, no. 33333/04, §§ 36-41, 11 February 2010; Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, §§ 50-52, 14 October 2010; Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia, no. 27570/03, § 52, 21 December 2010; and OOO Ivpress and Others v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR - 28873/15 (anhängig)

    OOO TELEKANAL DOZHD v. RUSSIA

    Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, was the interference "prescribed by law" and was that law sufficiently clear and foreseeable in its application? What was the objective link between the question of the poll and the plaintiffs (compare Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 44, 31 July 2007; Godlevskiy v. Russia, no. 14888/03, § 44, 23 October 2008, and Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 45, 4 April 2013)?.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht