Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RASHKIN v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RASHKIN v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (20)

• EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14

  Udo Pastörs: Holocaust-Leugnung ist in Europa kein Menschenrecht

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 69575/10

  Political speech has its limits as the Court said recently in the case of Pastörs v. Germany (no. 55225/14, 3 October 2019).
• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 69575/10

  The Court has developed an enormous amount of case-law about defamation, but this has been ignored by the present judgment (see Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, 9 May 2018; Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, ECHR 2015[6]; Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06 and 3 others, ECHR 2011; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, ECHR 2007-IV; Soares v. Portugal, no. 79972/12, 21 June 2016; and Almeida Leitão Bento Fernandes v. Portugal, no. 25790/11, 12 March 2015).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 69575/10

  The Court has developed an enormous amount of case-law about defamation, but this has been ignored by the present judgment (see Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, 9 May 2018; Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, ECHR 2015[6]; Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06 and 3 others, ECHR 2011; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, ECHR 2007-IV; Soares v. Portugal, no. 79972/12, 21 June 2016; and Almeida Leitão Bento Fernandes v. Portugal, no. 25790/11, 12 March 2015).

 
• EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07

  STOMAKHIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 69575/10

  The Court has developed an enormous amount of case-law about defamation, but this has been ignored by the present judgment (see Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, 9 May 2018; Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, ECHR 2015[6]; Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06 and 3 others, ECHR 2011; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, ECHR 2007-IV; Soares v. Portugal, no. 79972/12, 21 June 2016; and Almeida Leitão Bento Fernandes v. Portugal, no. 25790/11, 12 March 2015).
• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 25790/11

  ALMEIDA LEITÃO BENTO FERNANDES c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 69575/10

  The Court has developed an enormous amount of case-law about defamation, but this has been ignored by the present judgment (see Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, 9 May 2018; Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, ECHR 2015[6]; Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06 and 3 others, ECHR 2011; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, ECHR 2007-IV; Soares v. Portugal, no. 79972/12, 21 June 2016; and Almeida Leitão Bento Fernandes v. Portugal, no. 25790/11, 12 March 2015).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 79972/12

  SOARES v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 69575/10

  The Court has developed an enormous amount of case-law about defamation, but this has been ignored by the present judgment (see Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, 9 May 2018; Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, ECHR 2015[6]; Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06 and 3 others, ECHR 2011; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, ECHR 2007-IV; Soares v. Portugal, no. 79972/12, 21 June 2016; and Almeida Leitão Bento Fernandes v. Portugal, no. 25790/11, 12 March 2015).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 69575/10

  For the purpose of this analysis, I will apply the criteria established in the case of Perinçek v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 27510/08, ECHR 2015), in Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 41262/05, 26 July 2011) and in Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) ([GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 69575/10

  Finally, as regards the severity of the sanction, the Court reiterates that unpredictably large awards in defamation cases are capable of having a chilling effect on the freedom of expression and therefore require the most careful scrutiny on its part (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 64, ECHR 1999-III, and Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, § 71, 19 April 2011).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 69575/10

  The requirements of the protection of a politician's reputation had to be weighed against the interests of open discussion of political issues (see Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), 23 May 1991, § 59, Series A no. 204).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 69575/10

  Accordingly, interference with the freedom of expression of an opposition member of parliament, like the applicant, calls for the closest scrutiny (see Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 42, Series A no. 236, and Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 36, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 42461/13

  KARÁCSONY ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  KASABOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 22.02.2005 - 35839/97

  PAKDEMIRLI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 55120/00

  INDEPENDENT NEWS AND MEDIA AND INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS IRELAND LIMITED v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 51744/99

  KWIECIEN v. POLAND
• EGMR, 28.03.2013 - 14087/08

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND BORODYANSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.06.2008 - 15909/06

  I AVGI PUBLISHING AND PRESS AGENCY S.A. AND KARIS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 33333/04

  FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 36658/18

  ZHABLYANOV v. BULGARIA

  Although entailing a reduction in pay, it cannot be equated to the loss of a stable job and of one's livelihood (see Vogt, § 60; Fuentes Bobo, § 49; and Heinisch, § 91, all cited above), to a disciplinary sanction imposed on a member of parliament (see Szél and Others v. Hungary, no. 44357/13, § 84, 16 September 2014), let alone to an order to pay damages (see Rashkin v. Russia, no. 69575/10, § 19, 7 July 2020; Kiliçdaroglu v. Turkey, no. 16558/18, § 66, 27 October 2020; and Marinoni v. Italy, no. 27801/12, § 82, 18 November 2021), to a lifting of parliamentary immunity opening the way to a criminal prosecution (see Selahattin Demirta?Ÿ, cited above, §§ 246-47, and Kerestecioglu Demir v. Turkey, no. 68136/16, § 67, 4 May 2021), or to serious punitive measures such as a criminal conviction (see Lehideux and Isorni, § 57, and Wojczuk, § 105, both cited above), a criminal fine (see Soulas and Others v. France, no. 15948/03, § 46, 10 July 2008; Orban and Others v. France, no. 20985/05, § 53, 15 January 2009; and ? imunic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20373/17, § 47, 22 January 2019), a criminal fine convertible into imprisonment (see Nix v. Germany (dec.).
• EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 16558/18

  KILIÇDAROGLU v. TURKEY

  Political expression enjoys a high level of protection under Article 10 of the Convention, since very strong reasons are required for justifying restrictions on political speech (see Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 125, ECHR 2015) and there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on speech which, like the speeches in the instant case, is political in nature (see Rashkin v. Russia, no. 69575/10, § 18, 7 July 2020, not yet final).
• EGMR, 05.07.2022 - 42315/15

  DROUSIOTIS v. CYPRUS

  This amount is unusually high in absolute terms (see Rashkin v. Russia, no. 69575/10, § 19, 7 July 2020, and Antunes Emídio and Soares Gomes da Cruz v. Portugal [Committee], no. 75637/13 and 8114/14, § 64, 24 September 2019).
• EGMR - 40764/20 (anhängig)

  VIEIRA COELHO v. PORTUGAL

  (b) Was the criminal sanction imposed on the applicant proportionate in its nature and severity to the aims pursued (see CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 116, ECHR 2004-XI, and Mahmudov and Agazade v. Azerbaijan, no. 35877/04, §§ 50-51, 18 December 2008)? Has the chilling effect on freedom of expression and the political freedom to impart information and ideas sufficiently been considered by national courts (see Rashkin v. Russia, no. 69575/10, §§ 19-20, 7 July 2020)?.
• EGMR, 09.11.2021 - 44414/12

  ALEKSANDROV v. RUSSIA

  In view of the limited scope of their reasoning in this respect, the Court is not persuaded by their approach (see Monica Macovei v. Romania, no. 53028/14, § 88, 28 July 2020) as the first-instance court omitted to consider certain essential elements: it disregarded the fact that the pre-investigation inquiry had been resumed by the date of the delivery of its judgment in the defamation proceedings (see paragraph 16 above) thus failing to base itself on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Nadtoka v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29097/08, § 50, 8 October 2019); it did not assess whether it represented a value judgment not susceptible of proof rather than statements of fact (see CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 98, ECHR 2004-XI); it did not take into account the claimant's position as a chair of an electoral commission (see Redaktsiya Gazety Zemlyaki v. Russia, no. 16224/05, § 42, 21 November 2017) or of the applicant's position as a member of the Tambov City Duma and thus an elected representative of the people (see Rashkin v. Russia, no. 69575/10, § 15, 7 July 2020); and it did not consider that the interview had touched upon a matter of public interest (see Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 3), no. 7972/09, § 47, 2 October 2018) even though the claimant's conduct in his capacity of the chair of an electoral commission was clearly of legitimate concern to the general public (compare Monica Macovei, cited above, § 86).