Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KULIS v. POLAND

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - award Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02

  Freedom of the press affords the public one of the best means of discovering and forming an opinion of the ideas and attitudes of their political leaders (see Castells v. Spain, judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, § 43).

  It reiterates that the dominant position which those in power occupy makes it necessary for them to display restraint in resorting to criminal proceedings, particularly where other means are available for replying to the alleged criticisms of their adversaries (see, mutatis mutandis, Castells v. Spain, judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, pp. 23-24, § 46; Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-IV; and Raichinov v. Bulgaria, no. 47579/99, § 51, 20 April 2006).

• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02

  In so doing, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and, moreover, that they based their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Vogt v. Germany, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323, pp. 25-26, § 52, and Jerusalem v. Austria, cited above, § 33).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02

  Even in a political context it is legitimate to ensure that debate abides by a minimum degree of moderation and propriety, especially as the reputation of a politician must benefit from the protection afforded by the Convention (see Lindon, Otczakovsky-Laurnes and July v. France, [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 57).

• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  Feldek ./. Slowakei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02

  Similarly, that interest will weigh heavily in the balance in determining, as must be done under paragraph 2 of Article 10, whether the restriction was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see Worm v. Austria, judgment of 29 August 1997, Reports 1997-V, p. 1551, § 47, and Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 78, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94

  CEYLAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02

  It reiterates that the dominant position which those in power occupy makes it necessary for them to display restraint in resorting to criminal proceedings, particularly where other means are available for replying to the alleged criticisms of their adversaries (see, mutatis mutandis, Castells v. Spain, judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, pp. 23-24, § 46; Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-IV; and Raichinov v. Bulgaria, no. 47579/99, § 51, 20 April 2006).
• EGMR, 21.12.2004 - 61513/00

  BUSUIOC v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02

  The Court finds that in the circumstances of the case there is a causal link between the violation found and the alleged pecuniary damage as the applicant refers to the amount which he was ordered to pay by the domestic courts (see Busuioc v. Moldova, no. 61513/00, § 101, 21 December 2004).
• EGMR, 20.04.2006 - 47579/99

  RAICHINOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02

  It reiterates that the dominant position which those in power occupy makes it necessary for them to display restraint in resorting to criminal proceedings, particularly where other means are available for replying to the alleged criticisms of their adversaries (see, mutatis mutandis, Castells v. Spain, judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, pp. 23-24, § 46; Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-IV; and Raichinov v. Bulgaria, no. 47579/99, § 51, 20 April 2006).
• EGMR, 23.01.2007 - 43924/02

  ALMEIDA AZEVEDO c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02

  A similar position has been taken by the Court in another case involving a public figure who had been called a liar (see Almeida Azevedo v. Portugal, no. 43924/02, § 30, 23 January 2007).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02

  He relied on the Jersild v. Denmark judgment (23 September 1994, Series A no. 298) and submitted that the Government had not pointed to any "particularly strong reasons" which could justify punishing the publisher.
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02

  News reporting based on interviews, whether edited or not, constitutes one of the most important means whereby the press is able to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (see, for instance, The Observer and The Guardian v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, pp. 29-30, para. 59).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY
• KAG Aachen, 08.08.2006 - 18/06

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 18597/13

  GRA STIFTUNG GEGEN RASSISMUS UND ANTISEMITISMUS v. SWITZERLAND

  For them, the limits of critical comment are wider as they are inevitably and knowingly exposed to public scrutiny and must therefore display a particularly high degree of tolerance (see Ayhan Erdoğan v. Turkey, no. 39656/03, § 25, 13 January 2009, and Kuliś v. Poland, no. 15601/02, § 47, 18 March 2008).
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 39457/03

  SAYGILI AND FALAKAOGLU v. TURKEY

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, the following judgments: Sener v. Turkey, no. 26680/95, §§ 39-43, 18 July 2000, Ä°brahim Aksoy v. Turkey, nos. 28635/95, 30171/96 and 34535/97, §§ 51-53, 10 October 2000; Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 26, §§ 41-42, Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV, and Kulis v. Poland, no. 15601/02, §§ 36-41, 18 March 2008).

  The punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to the discussion of matters of public interest, and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so (see, for example, Kulis v. Poland, no. 15601/02, § 38, 18 March 2008).

• EGMR, 25.05.2021 - 57574/14

  MILOSAVLJEVIC v. SERBIA

  Accordingly, whilst a private individual unknown to the public may claim particular protection of his or her right to private life, the same is not true of public figures (see Minelli v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 14991/02, 14 June 2005; Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 55, 30 March 2010; and Milisavljević, cited above, § 34) in respect of whom the limits of critical comment are wider, as they are inevitably and knowingly exposed to public scrutiny and must therefore display a particularly high degree of tolerance (see Kuliś v. Poland, no. 15601/02, § 47, 18 March 2008; Ayhan Erdoğan v. Turkey, no. 39656/03, § 25, 13 January 2009; and Milisavljević, cited above, § 34).

• EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 73087/17

  BALASKAS v. GREECE

  For them, the limits of critical comment are wider as they are inevitably and knowingly exposed to public scrutiny and must therefore display a particularly high degree of tolerance (see Ayhan Erdoğan v. Turkey, no. 39656/03, § 25, 13 January 2009, and Kuliś v. Poland, no. 15601/02, § 47, 18 March 2008).
• EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 48979/10

  ERGÜNDOGAN c. TURQUIE

  Elle estime à cet égard que, étant donné que H.B. était un personnage public dans le contexte du débat d'intérêt général décrit ci-dessus, les limites de la critique admissible étaient plus larges à son égard que pour un simple individu (Kuliś c. Pologne, no 15601/02, § 47, 18 mars 2008).
• EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 25200/11

  DICKINSON c. TURQUIE

  Elle rappelle cependant à cet égard que, si tout individu qui s'engage dans un débat public d'intérêt général est tenu de ne pas dépasser certaines limites notamment quant au respect de la réputation et des droits d'autrui, il lui est permis de recourir à une certaine dose d'exagération, voire de provocation, c'est-à-dire d'être quelque peu immodéré dans ses propos (Kuliś c. Pologne, no 15601/02, § 47, 18 mars 2008).
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 36944/07

  KABOGLU ET ORAN c. TURQUIE

  Elle rappelle à cet égard que, si tout individu qui s'engage dans un débat public d'intérêt général est tenu de ne pas dépasser certaines limites notamment quant au respect de la réputation et des droits d'autrui, il lui est permis de recourir à une certaine dose d'exagération, voire de provocation, c'est-à-dire d'être quelque peu immodéré dans ses propos (Kuliś c. Pologne, no 15601/02, § 47, 18 mars 2008).
• EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 1759/08

  KABOGLU ET ORAN c. TURQUIE et 2 autres affaires

  Si tout individu qui s'engage dans un débat public d'intérêt général est tenu de ne pas dépasser certaines limites notamment quant au respect de la réputation et des droits d'autrui, il lui est permis de recourir à une certaine dose d'exagération, voire de provocation, c'est-à-dire d'être quelque peu immodéré dans ses propos (Kulis c. Pologne, no 15601/02, § 47, 18 mars 2008).
• EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 47274/19

  MILOSAVLJEVIC v. SERBIA

  Accordingly, whilst a private individual unknown to the public may claim particular protection of his or her right to private life, the same is not true of public figures (see Minelli v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 14991/02, 14 June 2005; Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 55, 30 March 2010; and Milisavljević, cited above, § 34) in respect of whom the limits of critical comment are wider, as they are inevitably and knowingly exposed to public scrutiny and must therefore display a particularly high degree of tolerance (see Kuliś v. Poland, no. 15601/02, § 47, 18 March 2008; Ayhan Erdoğan v. Turkey, no. 39656/03, § 25, 13 January 2009; and Milisavljević, cited above, § 34).
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 72068/10

  TASKAYA ET ERSOY c. TURQUIE

  À cet égard, la Cour estime que, dans la mesure où la requérante s'est exposée volontairement à l'attention du public et s'est engagée elle-même dans le débat public par ses déclarations à la presse, les limites de la critique admissible étaient plus larges à son égard que pour un simple individu (Kuliś c. Pologne, no 15601/02, § 47, 18 mars 2008).
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 19165/19

  ERSOY c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 50123/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 47881/11

  PRUNEA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 22.06.2010 - 41029/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 58781/13

  ARNARSON v. ICELAND
• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 23806/03

  DLUGOLECKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 38991/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 11976/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 53139/11

  DO CARMO DE PORTUGAL E CASTRO CÂMARA v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 17.09.2014 - 28949/03

  SANOCKI AND 4 OTHER CASES AGAINST POLAND
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 39656/03

  AYHAN ERDOGAN v. TURKEY