Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 24387/10 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,26589) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
IVANOVIC AND DOO DAILY PRESS v. MONTENEGRO
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
IVANOVIC AND DOO DAILY PRESS v. MONTENEGRO
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (11)
- EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96
CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 24387/10
The fact of directly accusing specific individuals by mentioning their names and positions placed the applicants under an obligation to provide a sufficient factual basis for their assertions (see Le?.ník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, § 57 in fine, ECHR 2003-IV, and CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 101, ECHR 2004-XI). - EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93
BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 24387/10
Journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-III; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 49, ECHR 1999-VI; and Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 38 in fine, Series A no. 313). - EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90
PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 24387/10
Journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-III; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 49, ECHR 1999-VI; and Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 38 in fine, Series A no. 313).
- EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95
DALBAN v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 24387/10
Journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-III; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 49, ECHR 1999-VI; and Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 38 in fine, Series A no. 313). - EGMR, 21.12.2004 - 61513/00
BUSUIOC v. MOLDOVA
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 24387/10
In addition, 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 (see Morice, cited above, § 126; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 76, ECHR 2004-XI; Busuioc v. Moldova, no. 61513/00, § 61, 21 December 2004, and the authorities cited therein; and Karpetas v. Greece, no. 6086/10, § 69 and § 78, 30 October 2012). - EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02
LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 24387/10
The Court reiterates, however, that the classification of a statement as a fact or as a value judgment is a matter which in the first place falls within the margin of appreciation of the national authorities, in particular the domestic courts (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 55, ECHR 2007-IV). - EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 28070/06
A. v. NORWAY
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 24387/10
Given the nature of the conflicting interests, the States must be given a certain margin of appreciation in striking the appropriate balance between those rights (see A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 66, 9 April 2009). - EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08
Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …
- EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 25333/06
EUROPAPRESS HOLDING D.O.O. v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 24387/10
In instances where the interests of the "protection of the reputation or rights of others" bring Article 8 into play, the Court may be required to verify whether the domestic authorities struck a fair balance when protecting the two values guaranteed by the Convention, namely, on the one hand, freedom of expression protected by Article 10 and, on the other, the right to respect for private life enshrined in Article 8 (see Medzlis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others, cited above, § 77, and Europapress Holding d.o.o. v. Croatia, no. 25333/06, § 58, 22 October 2009). - EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 6086/10
KARPETAS c. GRÈCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 24387/10
In addition, 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 (see Morice, cited above, § 126; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 76, ECHR 2004-XI; Busuioc v. Moldova, no. 61513/00, § 61, 21 December 2004, and the authorities cited therein; and Karpetas v. Greece, no. 6086/10, § 69 and § 78, 30 October 2012). - EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 35030/13
Petra Reski
- EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 44982/07
ÖNAL c. TURQUIE (N° 2)
Une telle motivation succincte, qui ne prend en compte aucune des considérations mentionnées ci-dessus, ne permet pas à la Cour d'établir que, en l'espèce, cette juridiction a effectué un examen adéquat de mise en balance entre le droit du requérant à la liberté d'expression et les buts légitimes visés conformément aux critères établis dans sa jurisprudence (Tarman, précité, § 38 ; voir, a contrario, Zeljko Ivanovic et D.O.O. Daily Press c. Monténégro, no 24387/10, § 74, 5 juin 2018).