Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GOODWIN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'Art. 10 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
• IRIS Merlin (Kurzinformation)

  Quellen eines Journalisten sind durch Artikel 10 der Europäischen Konvention für Menschenrechte geschützt

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 07.09.1993 - 17488/90
• EGMR, 27.03.1996 - 17488/90

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 22.11.1995 - 20166/92

  S.W. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.1996 - 17488/90

  In the Court's view the interpretation of the relevant law made by the House of Lords in the applicant's case did not go beyond what could be reasonably foreseen in the circumstances (see, mutatis mutandis, the recent S.W. v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335-B, p. 42, para. 36).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.1996 - 17488/90

  The Court recalls that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and that the safeguards to be afforded to the press are of particular importance (see, as a recent authority, the Jersild v. Denmark judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 23, para. 31).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.1996 - 17488/90

  A law that confers a discretion is not in itself inconsistent with this requirement, provided that the scope of the discretion and the manner of its exercise are indicated with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim in question, to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see, for instance, the Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, pp. 71-72, para. 37).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.1996 - 17488/90

  [5] See my partly dissenting opinion on that matter in the case of Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, p.46.

• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

  MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY

  For example, according to the Court's case-law, the right to receive information under Article 10 § 1 secures in this way the fundamental right of the press to receive information from anonymous sources (see Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, [GC], no. 17488/90, 27 March 1996).
• EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 30210/06

  RICCI c. ITALIE

  En pareil cas, la presse pourrait ne plus être à même de jouer son rôle indispensable de « chien de garde'et son aptitude à fournir des informations précises et fiables pourrait s'en trouver amoindrie (voir Goodwin c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 17488/90, 27 mars 1996, § 39, Recueil 1996 II).
• EKMR, 18.01.1996 - 25798/94

  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Commission recalls that in the case of Goodwin v. the United Kingdom (No. 17488/90, Comm. Rep. 1.3.94, pending before the European Court of Human Rights) it found that a disclosure order on a journalist to reveal his sources constituted an interference with the right freely to receive and impart information without interference by public authority.