Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 17.09.2014

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2008,61173
EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02 (https://dejure.org/2008,61173)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.03.2008 - 15601/02 (https://dejure.org/2008,61173)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. März 2008 - 15601/02 (https://dejure.org/2008,61173)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,61173) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

  • 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, 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, 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, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

    SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02
    There is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on debate on questions of public interest (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
  • EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

    NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02
    Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" (see, among many other authorities, Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, § 57, and Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).
  • EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

    FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE

    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, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

    SCHARSACH ET NEWS VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02
    Unlike the latter, the former inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his words and deeds by journalists and the public at large, and he must consequently display a greater degree of tolerance (see Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 26, § 42; Incal v. Turkey, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1567, § 54; and Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 30, ECHR 2003-XI).
  • EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

    JERSILD v. DENMARK

    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

    OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

    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, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

    PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02
    Journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313, p. 19, § 38).
  • EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

    Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  • EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

    Radikalenerlaß

  • 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, 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 (Kuli?› c. Pologne, no 15601/02, § 47, 18 mars 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 (Kulis c. Pologne, no 15601/02, § 47, 18 mars 2008).
  • EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 1759/08

    KABOGLU ET ORAN c. TURQUIE

    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, 20.10.2020 - 36944/07

    KABOGLU ET ORAN c. TURQUIE (N° 2)

    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 (Kuli?› c. Pologne, no 15601/02, § 47, 18 mars 2008).
  • 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 (Kulis c. Pologne, no 15601/02, § 47, 18 mars 2008).
  • EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 19165/19

    ÖMÜR ÇAGDAS ERSOY 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 (Kuli?› c. Pologne, no 15601/02, § 47, 18 mars 2008).
  • EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 47881/11

    PRUNEA v. ROMANIA

    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, and Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 55, 30 March 2010) in respect of whom 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 Erdogan v. Turkey, no. 39656/03, § 25, 13 January 2009, and Kuli?› v. Poland, no. 15601/02, § 47, 18 March 2008; see also Milisavljevic v. Serbia, no. 50123/06, §§ 32-34, 4 April 2017 and Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos.
  • EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 39656/03

    AYHAN ERDOGAN v. TURKEY

    Moreover, the Court reiterates that while limits of critical comment are wider if a public figure is involved, as he or she is inevitably and knowingly exposed to public scrutiny and must therefore display a particularly high degree of tolerance (see Kulis v. Poland, no. 15601/02, § 47, 18 March 2008), the reputation of a politician, even a controversial one, must benefit from the protection afforded by the Convention (see Lindon, Otczakovsky-Laurnes and July v. France, [GC], cited above, § 57, ECHR 2007-...).
  • EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 58781/13

    ARNARSON v. ICELAND

    The Court thus concludes that by publishing his allegation without confirmation on its veracity, the applicant could not have been acting in good faith, and thus in accordance with the standards of responsible journalism (see, for example, Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, §§ 62 and 64, ECHR 2001-III, Kulis v. Poland, no. 15601/02, § 38, 18 March 2008 and Bédat v. Switzerland, cited above, § 50).
  • EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 23806/03

    DLUGOLECKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 38991/02

    SAYGILI AND FALAKAOGLU v. TURKEY (No. 2)

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 17.09.2014 - 28949/03, 15601/02, 27209/03, 571/04, 17446/07   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2014,55932
EGMR, 17.09.2014 - 28949/03, 15601/02, 27209/03, 571/04, 17446/07 (https://dejure.org/2014,55932)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.09.2014 - 28949/03, 15601/02, 27209/03, 571/04, 17446/07 (https://dejure.org/2014,55932)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. September 2014 - 28949/03, 15601/02, 27209/03, 571/04, 17446/07 (https://dejure.org/2014,55932)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,55932) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SANOCKI AND 4 OTHER CASES AGAINST POLAND

    Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SANOCKI ET 4 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

    Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

Verfahrensgang

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht