Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 49379/13 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,41285) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CIORHAN v. ROMANIA
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
CIORHAN v. ROMANIA
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 23954/10
Zur Meinungsfreiheit in Ungarn
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 49379/13
The Court accepts that the interference in question was prescribed by law, namely Article 1357 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 17 above), and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 (see, mutatis mutandis, Uj v. Hungary, no. 23954/10, § 16, 19 July 2011, and Heinisch v. Germany, no. 28274/08, § 49, ECHR 2011 (extracts)). - EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 49379/13
Having regard to the substance of the applicant's complaints, the Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114 and 126, ECHR 2018), will examine the complaint from the standpoint of Article 10 alone (see, for instance and mutatis mutandis, Kincses v. Hungary, no. 66232/10, § 16, 27 January 2015, and Hasan Yazici v. Turkey, no. 40877/07, §§ 40-41, 15 April 2014). - EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 40877/07
HASAN YAZICI c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 49379/13
Having regard to the substance of the applicant's complaints, the Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114 and 126, ECHR 2018), will examine the complaint from the standpoint of Article 10 alone (see, for instance and mutatis mutandis, Kincses v. Hungary, no. 66232/10, § 16, 27 January 2015, and Hasan Yazici v. Turkey, no. 40877/07, §§ 40-41, 15 April 2014). - EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 66232/10
KINCSES v. HUNGARY
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 49379/13
Having regard to the substance of the applicant's complaints, the Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114 and 126, ECHR 2018), will examine the complaint from the standpoint of Article 10 alone (see, for instance and mutatis mutandis, Kincses v. Hungary, no. 66232/10, § 16, 27 January 2015, and Hasan Yazici v. Turkey, no. 40877/07, §§ 40-41, 15 April 2014).