Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KAZAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 10 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 22479/93

  ÖZTÜRK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1758/02

  However clearly drafted a legal provision may be, there will inevitably be a need for interpretation by the courts, whose judicial function is precisely to elucidate obscure points and dispel any doubts which may remain regarding the interpretation of legislation (see Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 55, ECHR 1999-VI).
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 51744/99

  KWIECIEN v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1758/02

  In that connection, the Court observes that the defamation claim was born out of the applicant's written complaint to a supervising military commander rather than out of publication in the media (see, by contrast, Dyuldin and Kislov, cited above, §§ 40 and 41, and Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, §§ 50 and 51, ECHR 2007-... concerning publication of so-called "open letters").
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 30160/04

  DZHAVADOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1758/02

  The Court further reiterates that the scope of the notion of foreseeability depends to a considerable degree on the content of the text in issue, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed (see, among others, Dzhavadov v. Russia, no. 30160/04, § 36, 27 September 2007).

 
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1758/02

  The Court reiterates in that connection that a norm cannot be regarded as a "law" within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the person to regulate his conduct; he must be able - if need be with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 41, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1758/02

  The Court considers that the notion of foreseeability applies not only to a course of conduct, of which an applicant should be reasonably able to foresee the consequences, but also to "formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties", which may be attached to such conduct, if found to be in breach of the national laws (see, mutatis mutandis, Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 140, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 19.12.1994 - 15153/89

  VEREINIGUNG DEMOKRATISCHER SOLDATEN ÖSTERREICHS AND GUBI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1758/02

  It is further noted that while Article 10 applies to military personnel just as it does to other persons within the jurisdiction of the Contracting States, the proper functioning of an army is hardly imaginable without legal rules designed to prevent servicemen from undermining military discipline, for example by writings (see, among others, Vereinigung demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs and Gubi v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1994, Series A no. 302, § 36).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1758/02

  The Court further reiterates that the domestic courts are best placed for interpreting and applying rules of substantive and procedural law (see, among many authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 32).

• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 17224/11

  MEDZLIS ISLAMSKE ZAJEDNICE BRCKO AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  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 Lesník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 52969/13

  WOJCZUK v. POLAND

  In such cases the Court has considered that "the requirements of such protection have 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 applicant's right to report irregularities in the conduct of State officials to a body competent to deal with such complaints" (see, mutatis mutandis, Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 23, 5 October 2006; Kazakov v. Russia, no. 1758/02, § 28, 18 December 2008; Siryk v. Ukraine, no. 6428/07, § 42, 31 March 2011; and Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.

  Finally, with regard to the proportionality of the restriction on the applicant's freedom of expression, the Court's case-law attaches considerable importance to the audience targeted by the impugned statements (see, for example, Grigoriades v. Greece, 25 November 1997, § 47, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII; Kazakov v. Russia, no. 1758/02, § 29, 18 December 2008; and Sofranschi v. Moldova, no. 34690/05, § 33, 21 December 2010).

• EGMR, 05.05.2011 - 33014/05

  COMITÉ DE RÉDACTION DE PRAVOYE DELO ET SHTEKEL c. UKRAINE

  La Cour a déjà connu d'une situation similaire dans une affaire russe, où elle était disposée à accepter que l'interprétation par le juge interne des notions de rétractation ou de rectification en vertu de la législation pertinente comme pouvant inclure les excuses n'était pas de nature à rendre illégale l'ingérence en cause au sens de la Convention (Kazakov c. Russie, no 1758/02, § 24, 18 décembre 2008).
• EGMR, 10.11.2016 - 18288/06

  BOYKANOV c. BULGARIE

  Dans un certain nombre d'affaires concernant des plaintes critiquant le travail de fonctionnaires, adressées à d'autres organes publics, et qui ont été sanctionnées par la suite par des condamnations pour diffamation, la Cour a estimé que la protection offerte par l'article 10 devait être analysée non pas au regard de la liberté de la presse ou de la discussion publique de questions d'intérêt général, mais par rapport au droit du requérant de se plaindre des agissements irréguliers d'un fonctionnaire devant l'organe compétent pour examiner de telles doléances (voir notamment Zakharov c. Russie, no 14881/03, § 23, 5 octobre 2006 ; Kazakov c. Russie, no 1758/02, § 26, 18 décembre 2008 ; Bezymyannyy c. Russie, no 10941/03, § 41, 8 avril 2010 ; Siryk c. Ukraine, no 6428/07, § 42, 31 mars 2011 ; Marinova et autres c. Bulgarie, nos 33502/07, 30599/10, 8241/11 et 61863/11, §§ 86-90, 12 juillet 2016).
• EGMR, 05.11.2019 - 33077/09

  VLADIMIROVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously examined cases concerning defamation proceedings born out of citizens" complaints to the authorities (see Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, 5 October 2006; Kazakov v. Russia, no. 1758/02, 18 December 2008, and Bezymyannyy v. Russia, no. 10941/03, 8 April 2010) and also cases concerning the exercise of the freedom of expression in the context of labour disputes (see Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06 and 3 others, ECHR 2011, and Csánics v. Hungary, no. 12188/06, 20 January 2009).