Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 14881/03
• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 14881/03

Wird zitiert von ... (19)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 14881/03

  The Court further notes that the applicant did not resort in his letter to abusive, strong or intemperate language, albeit it might be said to have contained a certain number of emotional expressions verging on exaggeration or provocation (cf. Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313, § 38).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 25716/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 14881/03

  The Court has in several cases observed that it may be necessary to protect public servants from offensive, abusive and defamatory attacks which are calculated to affect them in the performance of their duties and to damage public confidence in them and the office they hold (see Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999-I; and Lesník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, § 53, 11 March 2003).
• EGMR, 11.03.2003 - 35640/97

  LESNIK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 14881/03

  The Court has in several cases observed that it may be necessary to protect public servants from offensive, abusive and defamatory attacks which are calculated to affect them in the performance of their duties and to damage public confidence in them and the office they hold (see Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999-I; and Lesník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, § 53, 11 March 2003).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 25147/09

  TERENTYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has on many occasions pointed to the deficiency in the Russian law on defamation whereby it refers uniformly to "statements" and posits the assumption - as the present case illustrates - that any such "statement" is amenable to proof in civil proceedings (see Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia, no. 27570/03, § 52, 21 December 2010; Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, §§ 50-52, 14 October 2010; Fedchenko v. Russia, no. 33333/04, §§ 36-41, 11 February 2010; Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 47, 31 July 2007; Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 38, 14 December 2006; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 29, 5 October 2006; and Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, § 29, 21 July 2005).
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 33501/04

  [ENG]

  The Court has on many occasions pinpointed the structural deficiency of the Russian law on defamation which made no distinction between value judgments and statements of fact, referring uniformly to "statements" ("svedeniya"), and proceeded from the assumption that any such "statement" was amenable to proof in civil proceedings (see Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe, cited above, § 52; Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, §§ 50-52, 14 October 2010; Fedchenko v. Russia, no. 33333/04, §§ 36-41, 11 February 2010; Dyuldin and Kislov, cited above, § 47; Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 38, 14 December 2006; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 29, 5 October 2006, and Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, § 29, 21 July 2005).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 45791/13

  FALZON v. MALTA

  They thus constituted a value judgment that represented the applicant's subjective appraisal of the claimant's actions (compare Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 30, 5 October 2006) and as such were not susceptible of proof.

• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 14888/03

  GODLEVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  As the Court has already found, it made no distinction between value judgments and statements of fact, referring uniformly to "statements" ("svedeniya"), and proceeded from the assumption that any such "statement" was amenable to proof in civil proceedings (see Grinberg, cited above, § 29; Karman, cited above, § 38; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 29, 5 October 2006, and the domestic law cited in paragraphs 21 and 22 above).
• EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 15028/16

  HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA

  On 25 March 2015 the applicant lodged an appeal, alleging a violation of Article 10 of the Convention, relying, inter alia, on Zakharov v. Russia (no. 14881/03, 5 October 2006) and Kazakov v. Russia (no. 1758/02, 18 December 2008).
• EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 16224/05

  [ENG]

  The Court has on many occasions pointed to a deficiency in the Russian law on defamation, which refers uniformly to "statements" and posits the assumption - as the present case illustrates - that any such "statement" is susceptible of proof in civil proceedings (see Grinberg, cited above, § 29; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 29, 5 October 2006; Karman, cited above, § 38; Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe, cited above, § 52; and Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, § 23, 26 January 2017).
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 44436/13

  KANIA v. POLAND

  The Court is satisfied that in this regard the domestic authorities examined the applicant's case also in the light of the standards of Article 10 of the Convention (compare and contrast Sokołowski, cited above, § 46; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, §§ 29 and 30, 5 October 2006; see, mutatis mutandis, Błaja News Sp. z o.o. v. Poland, no. 59545/10, § 65, 26 November 2013).
• EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 39748/05

  [ENG]

  The Court has on many occasions pointed to the deficiency in Russian law on defamation referring uniformly to "statements" and positing the assumption - as the present case illustrates - that any such "statement" is amenable to proof in civil proceedings (see Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia, no. 27570/03, § 52, 21 December 2010; Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, §§ 50-52, 14 October 2010; Fedchenko, cited above, § 36; Dyuldin and Kislov, cited above, § 47; Karman, cited above, § 38; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 29, 5 October 2006; and Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, § 29, 21 July 2005).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 9406/05

  [ENG]

  The Court has on many occasions pinpointed the structural deficiency of the Russian law on defamation, as interpreted and applied at the relevant time, which made no distinction between value judgments and statements of fact, referring uniformly to "information" ("svedeniya"), and proceeded on the assumption that any such "information" was susceptible to proof in civil proceedings (see Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, § 29, 21 July 2005; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 29, 5 October 2006; Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 38, 14 December 2006; Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 47, 31 July 2007; Fedchenko v. Russia, no. 33333/04, §§ 36-41, 11 February 2010; Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, §§ 50-52, 14 October 2010; Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia, no. 27570/03, § 52, 21 December 2010; and OOO Ivpress and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 14.11.2024 - 43327/14

  MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  They had not made their allegations by reaching out to the public at large, for example through external reporting channels such as mass media outlets; instead, they had complained to the competent professional body, namely the ABA and alerted it directly, giving its Presidium an opportunity to examine the allegations (see, mutatis mutandis, Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, §§ 22 and 26, 5 October 2006).
• EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1758/02

  KAZAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 25968/02

  DYULDIN AND KISLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 39900/06

  Semik-Orzech ./. Polen
• EGMR, 05.11.2019 - 33077/09

  VLADIMIROVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 42982/08

  SAVELYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 23236/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 30084/11

  STOLBUNOV AND MOO SPRAVEDLIVOST v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 36712/10

  ROSCA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 29.10.2019 - 48741/11

  BYCHKOV v. RUSSIA