Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CROATIAN RADIO-TELEVISION v. CROATIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CROATIAN RADIO-TELEVISION v. CROATIA and 20 other applications

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 35841/02

  ÖSTERREICHISCHER RUNDFUNK v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 52132/19

  The judge in question referred in addition to Radio France and Others v. France ((dec.), no. 53984/00, ECHR 2003-X (extracts)) and Österreichischer Rundfunk v. Austria (no. 35841/02, 7 December 2006), where the Court had held that those public broadcasting organisations were non-governmental organisations within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention because the Austrian and French States had devised a legislative framework designed to guarantee their editorial independence and institutional autonomy.

  Relying on the Court's criteria developed in Radio France and Others (cited above), Österreichischer Rundfunk v. Austria (no. 35841/02, 7 December 2006) and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Turkey (no. 40998/98, ECHR 2007-V), the applicant institution argued that it had to be viewed as a non-governmental organisation because (a) it was granted editorial independence and institutional autonomy by the relevant legislation (see paragraph 62 above); (b) it had not been established to carry out public-administration tasks; (c) it provided a public service (see paragraph 48 above) rather than exercised any governmental powers; (d) it operated in a sector open to market competition and did not have a broadcasting monopoly; (e) it was under the supervision of the Electronic Media Council, an independent authority (see paragraph 66 above); and (f) ordinary courts had jurisdiction to decide on its rights and obligations.

  The majority rely on the existing case law concerning public radio and television companies (Radio France and Others v. France (dec.), no. 53984/00, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); Österreichischer Rundfunk v. Austria, no. 35841/02, 7 December 2006; MacKay and BBC Scotland v. the United Kingdom, no. 10734/05, 7 December 2010; Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft SRG v. Switzerland, no. 34124/06, 21 June 2012; and Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft and publisuisse SA v. Switzerland, no. 41723/14, 22 December 2020).

• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 53984/00

  RADIO FRANCE ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 52132/19

  The judge in question referred in addition to Radio France and Others v. France ((dec.), no. 53984/00, ECHR 2003-X (extracts)) and Österreichischer Rundfunk v. Austria (no. 35841/02, 7 December 2006), where the Court had held that those public broadcasting organisations were non-governmental organisations within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention because the Austrian and French States had devised a legislative framework designed to guarantee their editorial independence and institutional autonomy.

  As regards the applicant institution's argument that the present cases were not in any way different from Radio France and Others (v. France (dec.), no. 53984/00, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); see paragraphs 94 and 97 below), the Government replied that in that case the Court's conclusion that the applicant was a non-governmental organisation had been based on the finding that it did not enjoy any powers beyond those conferred by ordinary law and that it was subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, and not administrative courts.

  The majority rely on the existing case law concerning public radio and television companies (Radio France and Others v. France (dec.), no. 53984/00, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); Österreichischer Rundfunk v. Austria, no. 35841/02, 7 December 2006; MacKay and BBC Scotland v. the United Kingdom, no. 10734/05, 7 December 2010; Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft SRG v. Switzerland, no. 34124/06, 21 June 2012; and Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft and publisuisse SA v. Switzerland, no. 41723/14, 22 December 2020).

• EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 41723/14

  SCHWEIZERISCHE RADIO- UND FERNSEHGESELLSCHAFT ET PUBLISUISSE SA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 52132/19

  Applying these criteria (see paragraphs 100-101 above) to public broadcasting organisations, the Court has so far always held that they had locus standi to lodge an individual application (see Radio France and Others, cited above, § 26; Österreichischer Rundfunk, cited above, §§ 46-53; MacKay and BBC Scotland v. the United Kingdom, no. 10734/05, §§ 18-19, 7 December 2010; Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft SRG v. Switzerland, no. 34124/06, 21 June 2012; and Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft and publisuisse SA v. Switzerland, no. 41723/14, §§ 46-48, 22 December 2020).

  The majority rely on the existing case law concerning public radio and television companies (Radio France and Others v. France (dec.), no. 53984/00, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); Österreichischer Rundfunk v. Austria, no. 35841/02, 7 December 2006; MacKay and BBC Scotland v. the United Kingdom, no. 10734/05, 7 December 2010; Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft SRG v. Switzerland, no. 34124/06, 21 June 2012; and Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft and publisuisse SA v. Switzerland, no. 41723/14, 22 December 2020).

 
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 37956/11

  A.K. AND L. v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 52132/19

  He relied on the Court's judgments in the cases of A.K. and L. v. Croatia (no. 37956/11, § 46, 8 January 2013) and Norris v. Ireland (26 October 1988, § 31, Series A no. 142).

  National rules in this respect may serve purposes different from those contemplated by Article 34 and, while those purposes may sometimes be analogous, they need not always be so (see A.K. and L. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, § 46, 8 January 2013, and Norris v. Ireland, 26 October 1988, § 31, Series A no. 142).

• EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83

  NORRIS c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 52132/19

  He relied on the Court's judgments in the cases of A.K. and L. v. Croatia (no. 37956/11, § 46, 8 January 2013) and Norris v. Ireland (26 October 1988, § 31, Series A no. 142).

  National rules in this respect may serve purposes different from those contemplated by Article 34 and, while those purposes may sometimes be analogous, they need not always be so (see A.K. and L. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, § 46, 8 January 2013, and Norris v. Ireland, 26 October 1988, § 31, Series A no. 142).

• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  BLECIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 52132/19

  That is so because the issue of locus standi is the matter that goes to the Court's jurisdiction ratione personae which the Court is, like any other question of its jurisdiction, obliged to examine of its own motion (see Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III, and Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft and publisuisse SA, cited above, § 43).

• OVG Sachsen, 24.04.2023 - 6 D 39/22

  Anordnung erkennungsdienstlicher Behandlung; Notwendigkeit i. S. v. § 81b 2. Alt. …

  Az.: 6 D 39/22 K 1273/20.

  Die Beschwerde des Antragstellers gegen den Beschluss des Verwaltungsgerichts Dresden vom 24. Oktober 2022 - 6 K 1273/20 - wird zurückgewiesen.

• EGMR, 05.03.2024 - 37364/10

  BOSKOCEVIC v. SERBIA

  The present case must be distinguished from R. Kacapor and Others v. Serbia (nos. 2269/06 and 5 others, 15 January 2008), and thousands of other cases concerning the State's liability for the non-enforcement of final domestic decisions against socially owned companies, where the Court held that socially owned companies, at different stages of the privatisation process, did not enjoy "sufficient institutional and operational independence from the State" to absolve the latter from its responsibility under the Convention (see R. Kacapor and Others, cited above, § 98, and as concerns the status of socially owned companies in Serbia, §§ 71-76, and, contrast, Croatian Radio-Television v. Croatia, nos. 52132/19 and 19 others, § 105 in fine, 2 March 2023).