Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LEPOJIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 6 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 No separate issue under Art. 6 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 13909/05

  Subject to paragraph 2, it is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb (see, among many other authorities, the Castells v. Spain judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, p. 22, § 42, and the Vogt v. Germany judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323, p. 25, § 52).

  The position of the Court in this regard may be summarised as follows: the limits of permissible criticism are wider in relation to politicians than in relation to private citizens (see Castells v. Spain, judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, §§ 46-50, and Lopes Gomes da Silva v. Portugal, no. 37698/97, §§ 34-36, ECHR 2000-X).

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 13909/05

  The Court has also repeatedly upheld the right to impart, in good faith, information on matters of public interest, even where this involved damaging statements about private individuals (see, mutatis mutandis, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, ECHR 1999-III), and has emphasised that the limits of acceptable criticism are still wider where the target is a politician (see Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, § 59).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 13909/05

  It appears that the interpretation according to which "the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism" (see, inter alia, Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III, and Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 51, ECHR 2000-III) has acquired the characteristic of a well-established principle in the jurisprudence of the Court.

 
• EGMR, 28.09.2000 - 37698/97

  LOPES GOMES DA SILVA c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 13909/05

  The position of the Court in this regard may be summarised as follows: the limits of permissible criticism are wider in relation to politicians than in relation to private citizens (see Castells v. Spain, judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, §§ 46-50, and Lopes Gomes da Silva v. Portugal, no. 37698/97, §§ 34-36, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 28.04.2004 - 56679/00

  AZINAS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 13909/05

  It appears that the interpretation according to which "the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism" (see, inter alia, Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III, and Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 51, ECHR 2000-III) has acquired the characteristic of a well-established principle in the jurisprudence of the Court.
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 13909/05

  The Court has also repeatedly upheld the right to impart, in good faith, information on matters of public interest, even where this involved damaging statements about private individuals (see, mutatis mutandis, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, ECHR 1999-III), and has emphasised that the limits of acceptable criticism are still wider where the target is a politician (see Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, § 59).
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 13909/05

  Subject to paragraph 2, it is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb (see, among many other authorities, the Castells v. Spain judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, p. 22, § 42, and the Vogt v. Germany judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323, p. 25, § 52).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 13909/05

  As the Court stated in Handyside v. United Kingdom (judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, § 48): "... it is not possible to find... a uniform European conception of morals.

• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 55442/12

  MEDIPRESS-SOCIEDADE JORNALÍSTICA, LDA c. PORTUGAL

  En effet, la Cour note que les cours nationales n'ont pas pris en considération la nature ironique des assertions du journaliste dans le contexte de sa critique sur les « nouvelles règles du journalisme'proposées par le gouvernement (Lepojic c. Serbie, no 13909/05, § 77, 6 novembre 2007, et Sokolowski c. Pologne, no 75955/01, 46, 29 mars 2005).
• EGMR, 03.12.2013 - 64520/10

  UNGVÁRY AND IRODALOM KFT. v. HUNGARY

  In this regard, the amount of compensation awarded must "bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the... [moral]... injury... suffered" by the plaintiff in question (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 49 Series A no. 316-B; and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 96, ECHR 2005-II, where the Court held that the damages "awarded... although relatively moderate by contemporary standards... [were]... very substantial when compared to the modest incomes and resources of the... applicants..." and, as such, in breach of the Convention; see also Lepojic v. Serbia, no. 13909/05, § 77 in fine, 6 November 2007, where the reasoning of the domestic courts was found to be insufficient given, inter alia, the amount of compensation and costs awarded equivalent to approximately eight average monthly salaries).
• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 40485/08

  PETROVIC v. SERBIA

  In this latter connection, the Court notes that the request for the protection of legality was admittedly of a discretionary character, and normally such a remedy is not considered to be effective (see Lepojic v. Serbia, no. 13909/05, § 54, 6 November 2007) and could not restart the running of the six-month limit (see, for example, Kucherenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 41974/98, 4 May 1999).

 
• EGMR - 5995/06

  [ENG]

  Has there been a violation of the applicant's freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 50, ECHR 1999-VI; Lepojic v. Serbia, no. 13909/05, §§ 77-78, 6 November 2007; Bodrozic v. Serbia, no. 32550/05, §§ 49-59, 23 June 2009)?.
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 41158/09

  KOPRIVICA v. MONTENEGRO

  Finally, the amount of compensation awarded must "bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the... [moral]... injury... suffered" by the plaintiff in question (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 49 Series A no. 316-B; Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 96, ECHR 2005 - II, where the Court held that the damages "awarded... although relatively moderate by contemporary standards... [were]... very substantial when compared to the modest incomes and resources of the... applicants..." and, as such, in breach of the Convention; see also Lepojic v. Serbia, no. 13909/05, § 77 in fine, 6 November 2007, where the reasoning of the domestic courts was found to be insufficient given, inter alia, the amount of compensation and costs awarded equivalent to approximately eight average monthly salaries).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 31320/05

  MILOSEVIC v. SERBIA

  This remedy was thus also ineffective as understood by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Lepojic v. Serbia, no. 13909/05, § 54, 6 November 2007).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 27865/02

  BOCVARSKA v.

  In addition, the public prosecutor had full discretion in deciding whether to lodge the legality review request with the Supreme Court (see Lepojic v. Serbia, no. 13909/05, § 54, 6 November 2007, and Dimitrovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 21466/03, 30 September 2008).