Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GORYAYNOVA v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general;Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GORYAYNOVA v. UKRAINE

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 41752/09

  This is particularly so in the case of public service, since the very nature of public service requires its employees to be bound by such a duty (see Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 53, Series A no. 323, and Kudeshkina, § 93 and Langner, § 43, both cited above).
• EGMR, 17.09.2015 - 14464/11

  Keine Verletzung von Art. 10 EMRK (Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung) durch eine …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 41752/09

  The Court reiterates that the protection afforded by Article 10 of the Convention also extends to the workplace in general and to the public service in particular (see, among other authorities, Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. 14277/04, § 52, ECHR 2008; Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 85, 26 February 2009; and Langner v. Germany, no. 14464/11, § 39, 17 September 2015).

• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 2840/10

  OOO MEMO v. RUSSIA

  In addition to the various cases cited in the present judgment and those where the interference served a more specific aim of "maintaining the authority... of the judiciary" (see, most recently, Freitas Rangel v. Portugal, no. 78873/13, § 48, 11 January 2022, not yet final), the Court has already accepted the legitimate aim of "the protection of the reputation... of others" in respect of such public institutions as the police (Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, § 60, 28 August 2018) or the prosecutor's office (Goryaynova v. Ukraine, no. 41752/09, § 56, 8 October 2020).
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 40072/13

  MIROSLAVA TODOROVA c. BULGARIE

  À cette fin, elle tient compte des raisons invoquées par les autorités pour justifier les mesures en cause (voir, par exemple, Harabin, décision précitée, Kövesi c. Roumanie, no 3594/19, §§ 184-187, 5 mai 2020, et Goryaynova c. Ukraine, no 41752/09, § 54, 8 octobre 2020) ainsi que, le cas échéant, des arguments présentés dans le cadre des procédures de recours subséquentes (Koudechkina, précité, § 79, Köseoglu, décision précitée, § 25, et, mutatis mutandis, Nenkova-Lalova c. Bulgarie, no 35745/05, § 51, 11 décembre 2012).
• EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 39650/18

  ZUREK v. POLAND

  To that end the Court takes account of the reasons relied upon by the authorities to justify the measures in question (see, for example, Harabin (dec.), 2004, cited above; Kövesi v. Romania, no. 3594/19, §§ 184-187, 5 May 2020; and Goryaynova v. Ukraine, no. 41752/09, § 54, 8 October 2020) together with, if appropriate, any arguments submitted in the context of subsequent appeal proceedings (see Kudeshkina, cited above, § 79; Köseoglu, cited above, § 25; and, mutatis mutandis, Nenkova-Lalova v. Bulgaria, no. 35745/05, § 51, 11 December 2012).
• EGMR, 06.07.2021 - 41387/17

  NORMAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  This is particularly true where the employee concerned is the only person, or part of a small category of people, aware of what is happening at work and is thus best placed to act in the public interest by alerting the employer or the public at large (see Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. 14277/04, § 72, ECHR 2008; and Goryaynova v. Ukraine, no. 41752/09, §§ 49-50, 8 October 2020).