Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GODLEVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 14888/03
• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 14888/03

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 14888/03

  Against this background, it appears that the thrust of the impugned article was not primarily to accuse certain individuals of committing offences but rather promote an ongoing debate of evident concern to the local public (compare Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 63, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  SCHARSACH ET NEWS VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 14888/03

  According to its constant approach, the difference between a value judgment and a statement of fact ultimately lies in the degree of factual proof which has to be established and therefore a value judgment must be based on sufficient facts in order to constitute a fair comment under Article 10 (see Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 40, ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 14888/03

  According to the Court's constant case-law, Article 10 of the Convention protects journalists" right to divulge information on issues of general interest provided that they are acting in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and provide "reliable and precise" information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I; Schwabe v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-B, p. 34, § 34; Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313, p. 18, § 37).

 
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 28525/95

  UNABHÄNGIGE INITIATIVE INFORMATIONSVIELFALT v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 14888/03

  Furthermore, as regards the Regional Court's holding that it would have been legitimate for the applicant to make his comments public only after the judgment in the criminal case had been made, the Court recalls that the standard of proof for establishing the well-foundedness of a criminal charge by a competent court can hardly be compared to that which ought to be observed by a journalist when expressing his opinion on a matter of public concern, since the standards applied when assessing someone's actions in terms of morality are quite different from those required for establishing an offence under criminal law (see Karman, cited above, § 42; Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt v. Austria, no. 28525/95, § 46, ECHR 2002-I; and Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften-Verlags GmbH v. Austria, no. 58547/00, § 39, 27 October 2005).
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 62746/00

  WIRTSCHAFTS-TREND ZEITSCHRIFTEN-VERLAGSGES. M.B.H. c. AUTRICHE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 14888/03

  That approach distinguishes the present case from the Austrian one in which the Court found an interference with the right to freedom of expression to be justified because an Austrian news magazine published the full name of the police officer concerned at an early stage of criminal proceedings against him, although the disclosure of his full name did not add anything of public interest to the information already given in the article (see Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften-Verlag GmbH v. Austria (no. 2) (dec.), no. 62746/00, 14 November 2002).
• EGMR, 27.10.2005 - 58547/00

  WIRTSCHAFTS-TREND ZEITSCHRIFTEN-GESELLSCHAFT MBH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 14888/03

  Furthermore, as regards the Regional Court's holding that it would have been legitimate for the applicant to make his comments public only after the judgment in the criminal case had been made, the Court recalls that the standard of proof for establishing the well-foundedness of a criminal charge by a competent court can hardly be compared to that which ought to be observed by a journalist when expressing his opinion on a matter of public concern, since the standards applied when assessing someone's actions in terms of morality are quite different from those required for establishing an offence under criminal law (see Karman, cited above, § 42; Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt v. Austria, no. 28525/95, § 46, ECHR 2002-I; and Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften-Verlags GmbH v. Austria, no. 58547/00, § 39, 27 October 2005).
• EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 73604/01

  Monnat / Schweiz "L´honneur perdu de la Suisse"

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 14888/03

  Thus, in a Latvian case, it rejected the Government's objection relating to the alleged lack of the applicant's status as a "victim" of the violation, finding that, even though the measure only targeted the applicant's employer, the applicant - as the author of the articles in question - was affected by the judicial decisions which declared his publications defamatory and insulting and ordered their public refutation (see a/s Diena and Ozolins v. Latvia, no. 16657/03, §§ 55-60, 12 July 2007, and also, mutatis mutandis, Monnat v. Switzerland, no. 73604/01, § 33, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 14881/03

  ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 14888/03

  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, 07.06.2007 - 1914/02

  DUPUIS AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 14888/03

  Furthermore, the Court observes that the applicant did not use or cite any documents protected by the secret of the investigation or otherwise reveal confidential information relating to on-going criminal proceedings (compare Dupuis and Others v. France, no. 1914/02, § 43 et passim, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 16657/03

  A/S DIENA ET OZOLINS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 14888/03

  Thus, in a Latvian case, it rejected the Government's objection relating to the alleged lack of the applicant's status as a "victim" of the violation, finding that, even though the measure only targeted the applicant's employer, the applicant - as the author of the articles in question - was affected by the judicial decisions which declared his publications defamatory and insulting and ordered their public refutation (see a/s Diena and Ozolins v. Latvia, no. 16657/03, §§ 55-60, 12 July 2007, and also, mutatis mutandis, Monnat v. Switzerland, no. 73604/01, § 33, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13704/88

  SCHWABE v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

• EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 14139/21

  NARBUTAS v. LITHUANIA

  It is true that the applicant was not prosecuted or punished for any alleged disclosure; however, the existence of an interference is conceivable even in the absence of prejudice or damage (see, mutatis mutandis, Godlevskiy v. Russia, no. 14888/03, § 36, 23 October 2008, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 12996/12

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court notes that it has previously dismissed similar objections on the grounds that the fact that no award of damages was issued against the applicant cannot be decisive for his status as a "victim" of the alleged violation where he had been a co-defendant in the relevant proceedings (see a/s Diena and Ozoli?†s v. Latvia, no. 16657/03, §§ 57-60, 12 July 2007, and Godlevskiy v. Russia, no. 14888/03, §§ 34-37, 23 October 2008).

  The domestic courts did not advance any such reasons (see, with further references, Godlevskiy v. Russia, no. 14888/03, § 45, 23 October 2008; and Pedersen and Baadsgaard, cited above, § 77).

• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 5126/05

  YORDANOVA AND TOSHEV v. BULGARIA

  In those circumstances, the Court makes no award in respect of pecuniary damage (see Godlevskiy v. Russia, no. 14888/03, § 52, 23 October 2008).

 
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 44294/06

  CHELTSOVA v. RUSSIA

  However, the domestic courts dealing with L.K."s defamation proceedings paid no heed to the fact that the statements did not emanate from the applicant but were clearly identified as someone else's (see Godlevskiy v. Russia, no. 14888/03, § 45, 23 October 2008).
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 33501/04

  OOO IVPRESS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates in this respect that there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on debate on questions of public interest and that very strong reasons are required for justifying such restrictions (see Godlevskiy v. Russia, no. 14888/03, § 41, 23 October 2008, Krasulya, cited above, § 38, and Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 29097/08

  NADTOKA v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  However, the domestic courts dealing with A.V."s defamation claims paid no heed to the fact that the statements had not emanated from the applicant but had been clearly identified as someone else's (see Godlevskiy v. Russia, no. 14888/03, § 45, 23 October 2008).
• EGMR - 28873/15 (anhängig)

  OOO TELEKANAL DOZHD v. RUSSIA

  Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, was the interference "prescribed by law" and was that law sufficiently clear and foreseeable in its application? What was the objective link between the question of the poll and the plaintiffs (compare Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 44, 31 July 2007; Godlevskiy v. Russia, no. 14888/03, § 44, 23 October 2008, and Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 45, 4 April 2013)?.
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 11751/03

  ROMANENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  They confined their analysis to the discussion of the damage to the plaintiffs' reputation without giving any consideration to the Convention standard which requires very strong reasons for justifying restrictions on debates on questions of public interest (see Godlevskiy v. Russia, no. 14888/03, § 41, 23 October 2008, and Krasulya, cited above, § 38).