Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DABROWSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses - claim dismissed (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.08.2005 - 18235/02
• EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 18235/02

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 18235/02

  There is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on debate on questions of public interest (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 18235/02

  Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" (see, among many other authorities, Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, § 57, and Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  SCHARSACH ET NEWS VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 18235/02

  Unlike the latter, the former inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his words and deeds by journalists and the public at large, and he must consequently display a greater degree of tolerance (see Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 26, § 42, Incal v. Turkey, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1567, § 54; Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 30, ECHR 2003-XI).

 
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 18235/02

  In so doing, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and, moreover, that they based their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Vogt v. Germany, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323, pp. 25-26, § 52, and Jerusalem v. Austria, cited above, § 33).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 18235/02

  Freedom of the press affords the public one of the best means of discovering and forming an opinion of the ideas and attitudes of their political leaders (Castells v. Spain, judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, § 43).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 18235/02

  Journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313, p. 19, § 38).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 18235/02

  Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" (see, among many other authorities, Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, § 57, and Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 18235/02

  Although freedom of expression may be subject to exceptions they "must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions must be convincingly established" (see The Observer and The Guardian v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, p. 30, § 59).
• EGMR, 25.03.1985 - 8734/79

  Barthold ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 18235/02

  By the same token, it is liable to hamper the press in the performance of its task of purveyor of information and public watchdog (see, mutatis mutandis, Barthold v. Germany, judgment of 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, p. 26, § 58, and Lingens v. Austria, cited above, p. 27, § 44).

• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Dans l'arrêt Dabrowski c. Pologne (no 18235/02, 19 décembre 2006), la Cour a également conclu à une violation de l'article 10 de la Convention pour un article qui avait fait l'objet d'une condamnation pour avoir qualifié un maire adjoint de «maire voleur».
• EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 12484/05

  CIESIELCZYK v. POLAND

  Although the Court has accepted on many occasions that a recourse to a degree of exaggeration, provocation, or immoderate statements (see Mamère v. France, no. 12697/03, § 25, ECHR 2006-..., and Dabrowski v. Poland, no. 18235/02, § 35, 19 December 2006), nevertheless, it must be left open to the domestic courts to punish gratuitous insult.