Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MEDZLIS ISLAMSKE ZAJEDNICE BRCKO ET AUTRES c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Non-violation de l'article 10 - Liberté d'expression-Général (Article 10-1 - Liberté d'expression) (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MEDZLIS ISLAMSKE ZAJEDNICE BRCKO AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MEDZLIS ISLAMSKE ZAJEDNICE BRCKO AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MEDZLIS ISLAMSKE ZAJEDNICE BRCKO I DRUGI v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Medzlis Islamske zajednice Brcko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

  [31.08.2016]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 17224/11
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 17224/11

Papierfundstellen

• afp 2018, 310

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (25)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 34690/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 17224/11

  In this connection the Court finds particularly noteworthy the approach followed by the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the present case (see paragraph 33 above), relying in substance on Convention case-law developed in a comparable group of cases where the Court found on the facts that "the requirements of protection under Article 10 of the Convention ha[d] to be weighed not in relation to the interests of the freedom of the press or of open discussion of matters of public concern but rather against the applicants' right to report alleged irregularities in the conduct of State officials" (see Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 23, 5 October 2006; Siryk v. Ukraine, no. 6428/07, § 42, 31 March 2011; Sofranschi v. Moldova, no. 34690/05, § 29, 21 December 2010; Bezymyannyy v. Russia, no. 10941/03, § 41, 8 April 2010; Kazakov v. Russia, no. 1758/02, § 28, 18 December 2008; and Lešník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, ECHR 2003-IV).

  Accordingly, we conclude that the reasons adduced by the domestic courts were not "relevant and sufficient" (see, for example, Sofranschi v. Moldova, no. 34690/05, § 34, 21 December 2010) to justify the interference with the applicants' freedom of expression.

• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 17224/11

  In instances where, in accordance with the criteria set out above, the interests of the "protection of the reputation or rights of others" bring Article 8 into play, the Court may be required to verify whether the domestic authorities struck a fair balance when protecting the two values guaranteed by the Convention, namely, on the one hand, freedom of expression protected by Article 10 and, on the other, the right to respect for private life enshrined in Article 8. The general principles applicable to the balancing of these rights were first set out in Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC] (nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 104-07, ECHR 2012) and Axel Springer AG (cited above, §§ 85-88), then restated in more detail in Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC] (no. 40454/07, §§ 90-93, ECHR 2015 (extracts)) and more recently summarised in Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC] (no. 27510/08, § 198, ECHR 2015 (extracts)) as follows:.
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

  MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 17224/11

  Indeed, the Court has accepted that when an NGO draws attention to matters of public interest, it is exercising a public watchdog role of similar importance to that of the press (see Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 103, ECHR 2013 (extracts)) and may be characterised as a social "watchdog" warranting similar protection under the Convention as that afforded to the press (ibid., and Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 166, 8 November 2016).

• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 17224/11

  Indeed, the Court has accepted that when an NGO draws attention to matters of public interest, it is exercising a public watchdog role of similar importance to that of the press (see Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 103, ECHR 2013 (extracts)) and may be characterised as a social "watchdog" warranting similar protection under the Convention as that afforded to the press (ibid., and Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 166, 8 November 2016).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 17224/11

  These factors, in turn, require consideration of other elements such as whether the newspaper had conducted a reasonable amount of research before publication (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 37, Series A no. 313), whether the newspaper presented the story in a reasonably balanced manner (see Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no. 26132/95, § 57, ECHR 2000-IV) and whether the newspaper gave the persons defamed the opportunity to defend themselves (ibid., § 58).
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 17224/11

  In this connection the Court notes that the applicants did not explicitly say in the letter that part of the information which they passed on to the authorities had emanated from other sources (employees of the radio station) (see Thoma, cited above, § 64, and Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 65, Series A no. 239), without there being any obligation to identify that source (see Albert-Engelmann-Gesellschaft mbH, cited above, § 32).
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 17224/11

  In order to determine the approach to be applied in the present case, the Court has to look at the interference complained of in the light of the case as a whole, including the form in which the remarks held against the applicants were conveyed, their content and the context in which the impugned statements were made (see Stankiewicz and Others v. Poland, no. 48723/07, § 61, 14 October 2014, and Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, §§ 44 and 46, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 5266/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 17224/11

  In its contextual examination of the disputed letter as a whole, the Court must carry out its own evaluation of the impugned statements (see Nikowitz and Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria, no. 5266/03, §§ 25-26, 22 February 2007).
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 40238/02

  BUCUR ET TOMA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 17224/11

  However, the Court notes that the applicants were not in any subordinated work-based relationship with the BD public radio (see paragraphs 43 and 44 above) which would make them bound by a duty of loyalty, reserve and discretion towards the radio, which are particular features of this concept as defined in its case-law (see, by contrast, Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. 14277/04, § 70, ECHR 2008; Bucur and Toma v. Romania, no. 40238/02, § 93, 8 January 2013; and Heinisch v. Germany, no. 28274/08, § 64, ECHR 2011 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 510/04

  TØNSBERGS BLAD AS AND HAUKOM v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 17224/11

  This depends on a broader assessment of the subject matter and the context of the letter (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, cited above, § 63; Björk Eiðsdóttir v. Iceland, no. 46443/09, § 67, 10 July 2012, and Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, § 87, 1 March 2007).
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 12148/03

  SANCHEZ CARDENAS v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 43380/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.02.2017 - 12138/08

  AURELIAN OPREA AGAINST ROMANIA
• EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1758/02

  KAZAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.03.2003 - 35640/97

  LESNIK c. SLOVAQUIE
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 44436/13

  KANIA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 34472/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 10941/03

  BEZYMYANNYY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 45710/99
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  Maestri ./. Italien
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 28070/06
• EuGH - 29/78 (Verfahren ohne Entscheidung erledigt)

  Delfino / Kommission
• KAG Münster, 28.01.2010 - 25/09
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 59330/00

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 28482/13

  Aussagen zu NS-Zeit - Eva Herman scheitert vor EGMR

  Dieses Recht schützt eine Person auch vor der Zuschreibung einer Aussage, die sie nicht oder so nicht getätigt hat, zum Beispiel im Fall von unrichtigen oder verfälschten Zitaten (siehe sinngemäß unter dem Blickwinkel journalistischer Pflichten Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko u. a. ./. Bosnien und Herzegowina [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 17224/11, Rdnr. 115, 27.
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 62721/13

  Persönlichkeitsrecht

  In diesem Zusammenhang verweist er auf die in den Urteilen von H. (Nr. 2) (…a. a. O) und S. AG ./. Deutschland ([GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 39954/08, 7. Februar 2012) niedergelegten und in der Folge konkretisierten (Couderc und Hachette Filipacchi Associés, a. a. O., Rdnrn. 83-93, sowie Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko u. a. ./. Bosnien und Herzegowina [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 17224/11, Rdnr. 77, 27.