Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KURIER ZEITUNGSVERLAG UND DRUCKEREI GMBH v. AUSTRIA (No. 2)

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KURIER ZEITUNGSVERLAG UND DRUCKEREI GMBH v. AUSTRIA (No. 2) - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General

• juris (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (4)

• internet-law.de (Kurzinformation)

  Zur Abwägung zwischen Pressefreiheit und dem Schutzbedürfnis Minderjähriger

• rechtsportlich.net (Kurzinformation)

  Über Minderjährige darf nicht einfach so berichtet werden

• medienrecht-blog.com (Kurzinformation)

  "Die Justiz muss sensibler werden” - Der Boulevardjournalismus auch

• beck.de (Kurzinformation)

  Schutz des Minderjährigen bei Fotoveröffentlichung vorrangig

Besprechungen u.ä.

• lehofer.at (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  "Fall Christian": Foto vom schmerzverzerrten Gesicht des Opfers eines Sorgerechtsstreits für Berichterstattung nicht notwendig

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• NJW 2013, 3501

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 1593/06

  This power of appreciation is not, however, unlimited but goes hand in hand with a European supervision by the Court, whose task it is to give a final ruling on whether a restriction is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 58, ECHR 1999-III).

  Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216; Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 63, Series A no. 239; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-III; and, more recently, Gutiérrez Suárez v. Spain, no. 16023/07, § 25, 1 June 2010).

• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 1593/06

  According to the Court's well-established case-law, the test of necessity in a democratic society requires the Court to determine whether the interference complained of corresponded to a "pressing social need", whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, and whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify it are relevant and sufficient (see The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 62, Series A no. 30).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 1593/06

  Whilst it is true that the methods of objective and balanced reporting may vary considerably and that it is therefore not for this Court, nor for the national courts, to substitute its own views for those of the press as to what technique of reporting should be adopted (Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298), editorial discretion is not unbounded.

• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 1593/06

  Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216; Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 63, Series A no. 239; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-III; and, more recently, Gutiérrez Suárez v. Spain, no. 16023/07, § 25, 1 June 2010).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 1593/06

  By reason of the "duties and responsibilities" inherent in the exercise of freedom of expression, the safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and providing 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, and, as a recent authority, Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, no. 3514/02, § 60, 10 February 2009).
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 1593/06

  Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216; Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 63, Series A no. 239; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-III; and, more recently, Gutiérrez Suárez v. Spain, no. 16023/07, § 25, 1 June 2010).
• EGMR, 04.06.2009 - 21277/05

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 1593/06

  The Court has always stressed the contribution made by photographs or articles in the press to a debate of general interest (see Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria (no. 2), no. 21277/05 § 46, 4 June 2009, with further references).
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 25576/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 1593/06

  Although the press must not overstep certain bounds, in particular in respect of the reputation and rights of others or the proper administration of justice, its duty is nevertheless to impart - in a manner consistent with its obligations and responsibilities - information and ideas on all matters of public interest (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, cited above, § 59, and as a recent authority, Flinkkilä and Others v. Finland, no. 25576/04, § 73, 6 April 2010).
• EGMR, 13.11.2019 - 39401/04

  MGN LIMITED AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 1593/06

  In such conditions freedom of expression calls for a narrower interpretation (see MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, § 143, 18 January 2011, and Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, § 65-66, ECHR 2004-VI).
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 62746/00

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 1593/06

  However, given that neither Christian himself nor his parents were public figures or had previously entered the public sphere, it cannot be considered that the disclosure of his identity was essential for understanding the particulars of the case (see "Wirtschafts-Trend" Zeitschriften-Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (no. 2) v. Austria (dec.), no. 62746/00, 14 November 2002).
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 3514/02

  EERIKAINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• OLG Köln, 28.03.2019 - 15 U 155/18

  Fahrradhelmkampagne - Foto von Prominenter ohne Helm darf veröffentlicht werden - …

  Insofern hat auch der EGMR  - selbst wenn es um eine im öffentlichen Interesse liegende Auseinandersetzung in einem Sorgerechtsstreit und dessen Behandlung bei Gericht ging - eine Abbildung eines zuvor in der Öffentlichkeit unbekannten Minderjährigen beanstandet (EGMR v. 19.06.2012 - 1593/06, NJW 2013, 3501 Rn. 58) und selbst bei der Preisgabe der Identität der Person im Übrigen geprüft, ob dies für das Verständnis der Einzelheiten des Falles "wesentlich" gewesen wäre (…a.a.O., Rn. 57).