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 ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 25716/94

  JANOWSKI v. POLAND

  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).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  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, 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, 15.11.2011 - 39900/06

  Semik-Orzech ./. Polen

  The approach taken by the courts is therefore compatible with freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention (contrast Sokolowski v. Poland, no. 75955/01, § 46, 29 March 2005; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, §§ 29 and 30, 5 October 2006; and Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, §§ 42 and 43, 14 December 2006).
• EGMR, 05.11.2019 - 33077/09

  VLADIMIROVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously examined cases concerning defamation proceedings born out of citizens" complaints to the authorities (see Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, 5 October 2006; Kazakov v. Russia, no. 1758/02, 18 December 2008, and Bezymyannyy v. Russia, no. 10941/03, 8 April 2010) and also cases concerning the exercise of the freedom of expression in the context of labour disputes (see Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06 and 3 others, ECHR 2011, and Csánics v. Hungary, no. 12188/06, 20 January 2009).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 9406/05

  KUNITSYNA v. RUSSIA

  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.