Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALITHIA PUBLISHING COMPANY LTD & CONSTANTINIDES v. CYPRUS

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3 MRK
  No violation of Art. 10 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 17550/03

  Lastly, as to the complaint about the burden of proof, the Court considers that it is not, in principle, incompatible with Article 10 to place on a defendant in libel proceedings who wishes to rely on the defence of justification the onus of proving to the civil standard the truth of defamatory statements (see McVicar v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 87, and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 93, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 17550/03

  In previous cases, when the Court has been called upon to decide whether to exempt newspapers from their ordinary obligation to verify factual statements that are defamatory of private individuals, it has exercised a discretion after taking into account various factors, particularly the nature and degree of the defamation and the extent to which the newspaper could have reasonably regarded its sources as reliable with regard to the allegations (Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 66, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 17550/03

  These factors, in turn, require consideration of other elements such as the authority of the source (Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, cited above), whether the newspaper had conducted a reasonable amount of research before publication (Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313, § 37), whether the newspaper presented the story in a reasonably balanced manner (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 (Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, cited above, § 58).

 
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 17550/03

  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, § 37; Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 March 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, at § 31).
• EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 26132/95

  BERGENS TIDENDE ET AUTRES c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 17550/03

  These factors, in turn, require consideration of other elements such as the authority of the source (Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, cited above), whether the newspaper had conducted a reasonable amount of research before publication (Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313, § 37), whether the newspaper presented the story in a reasonably balanced manner (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 (Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, cited above, § 58).
• EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 58729/00

  ABEBERRY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 17550/03

  The Court notes that it is common ground between the parties that the interference pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and reputation of others, an aim which is consistent with the protection afforded to the right to reputation under Article 8 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, § 35, 15 November 2007; White v. Sweden, no. 42435/02, § 19, 19 September 2006; Chauvy and Others v. France, no. 64915/01, § 70, ECHR 2004-VI; and Abeberry v. France (dec.) no. 58729/00, 21 September 2004).

• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 18748/10

  KIESER AND TRALAU-KLEINERT v. GERMANY

  Daher liegt Unterschied zwischen einer Tatsachenbehauptung und einem Werturteil darin, wie hoch die Anforderungen an den zu erbringenden Tatsachenbeweis sein müssen (…siehe Europapress Holding D.O.O../. Kroatien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 25333/06, Rdnr. 54, 22. Oktober 2009) Bei der Bewertung der Rechtmäßigkeit von Tatsachenbehauptungen ist es grundsätzlich nicht mit Artikel 10 unvereinbar, einem Beklagten in einstweiligen Verfügungsverfahren die Pflicht aufzuerlegen, den Wahrheitsgehalt der diffamierenden Äußerungen den zivilrechtlichen Anforderungen entsprechend nachzuweisen (vgl. McVicar./. Vereinigtes Königreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 46311/99, Rdnr. 87, ECHR 2002-III, und, im Hinblick auf Verfahren wegen Beleidigung, Alithia Publishing Company Ltd und Constantinides./. Zypern, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 17550/03, Rdnr. 68, 22. Mai 2008).
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  KASABOVA v. BULGARIA

  It reiterated that point in Alithia Publishing Company Ltd and Constantinides v. Cyprus (no. 17550/03, § 68, 22 May 2008); Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 28577/05, 10 February 2009); and Europapress Holding d.o.o. v. Croatia (no. 25333/06, § 63, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 42911/08

  ORLOVSKAYA ISKRA v. RUSSIA

  By reason of the "duties and responsibilities", which are inherent in the exercise of the 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 in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, § 65, cited above, and Alithia Publishing Company Ltd and Constantinides v. Cyprus, no. 17550/03, § 65, 22 May 2008).

 
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 25333/06

  EUROPAPRESS HOLDING D.O.O. v. CROATIA

  In other words, while the requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is generally impossible to fulfil and infringes Article 10 (see, for example, Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 103, and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), 23 May 1991, § 63, Series A no. 204), the requirement to prove to a reasonable standard of proof that a factual statement was substantially true does not contravene Article 10 of the Convention (see, for example, McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, § 87, ECHR 2002-III; Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 39, 14 February 2008; and Alithia Publishing Company Ltd and Constantinides v. Cyprus, no. 17550/03, § 70, 22 May 2008).
• EGMR, 05.07.2022 - 42315/15

  DROUSIOTIS v. CYPRUS

  The relevant constitutional provisions concerning freedom of expression, as well as legislative provisions concerning the law of defamation, are set out in Alithia Publishing Company Ltd and Constantinides v. Cyprus (no. 17550/03, §§ 34-39, 22 May 2008).
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 17221/13

  FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA (No. 4)

  The Government further argued that the domestic courts had duly balanced the applicant's rights under Article 10 of the Convention and the plaintiff's rights protected under Article 8. In that regard they relied, inter alia, on Keller v. Hungary ((dec.), no. 33352/02, 4 April 2006); Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France ([GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, ECHR 2007-IV); Pfeifer v. Austria (no. 12556/03, 15 November 2007); Vitrenko and Others v. Ukraine ((dec.), no. 23510/02, 16 December 2008); Alithia Publishing Company Ltd and Constantinides v. Cyprus (no. 17550/03, § 49, 22 May 2008); and OOO "Vesti" and Ukhov v. Russia (no. 21724/03, § 62, 30 May 2013).
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 7972/09

  FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA (No. 3)

  21279/02 and 36448/02, ECHR 2007-IV; Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, 15 November 2007; Vitrenko and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 23510/02, 16 December 2008; Alithia Publishing Company Ltd and Constantinides v. Cyprus, no. 17550/03, § 49, 22 May 2008; and OOO "Vesti" and Ukhov v. Russia, no. 21724/03, § 62, 30 May 2013).
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 17229/13

  FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA (No. 5)

  21279/02 and 36448/02, ECHR 2007-IV; Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, 15 November 2007; Vitrenko and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 23510/02, 16 December 2008; Alithia Publishing Company Ltd and Constantinides v. Cyprus, no. 17550/03, § 49, 22 May 2008; and OOO "Vesti" and Ukhov v. Russia, no. 21724/03, § 62, 30 May 2013).
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 28577/05

  THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE SPRL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In assessing the legitimacy of statements of fact the Court considers that it is not, in principle, incompatible with Article 10 to place on a defendant in libel proceedings who wishes to rely on the defence of justification the onus of proving to the civil standard the truth of defamatory statements (see, inter alia, Alithia Publishing Company Ltd and Constantinides v. Cyprus, no. 17550/03, § 68, 22 May 2008; McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, § 87, ECHR 2002-III; and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 93, ECHR 2005-II).