Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A., BYRNE AND TWENTY-TWENTY TELEVISION LIMITED v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EKMR, 23.10.1997 - 32712/96

  Furthermore, when so determining, the Commission observes that it is not its task to take the place of the competent national courts and make a fresh examination of all the facts and evidence - rather the task of the Commission is to examine whether those courts adduced reasons to justify the relevant interference which are "relevant and sufficient" (Eur Court HR, Olsson v. Sweden judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, p. 32, para. 68).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EKMR, 23.10.1997 - 32712/96

  90 and Hokkanen v. Finland judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299, pp.
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EKMR, 23.10.1997 - 32712/96

  In addition, in considering the "duties and responsibilities" of the applicants as persons exercising their freedom of expression through the making and production of a television programme, the potential impact of the programme on the public and, consequently, on C must be considered to be an important factor (Eur. Court HR, Jersild v. Denmark judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 23 para. 31).

 
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 23.10.1997 - 32712/96

  (Eur. Court HR, Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, pp. 29-30, para. 59).
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 23.10.1997 - 32712/96

  As to whether the interference was "prescribed by law", the Commission considers in these cases that the terms "in accordance with the law" (Article 8 (Art. 8)) and "prescribed by law" (Article 10 (Art. 10)) are to be read in the same way (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Malone v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, p. 31, para. 66).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EKMR, 23.10.1997 - 32712/96

  The Commission agrees with the first applicant that "in accordance with the law" means that not only must the interference in question be authorised by a rule of domestic or international law and be adequately accessible, but that a law cannot be regarded as such unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct (Eur. Court HR, Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 31, para. 49).