Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RINGIER AXEL SPRINGER SLOVAKIA, A.S. v. SLOVAKIA (No. 2)

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• urheberrecht.org (Kurzinformation)

  EGMR verurteilt Slowakei zu Schadensersatzzahlung an Zeitungsverlag

• juraforum.de (Kurzinformation)

  Verlag Ringier Axel Springer erhält von Slowakei Schadenersatz

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RINGIER AXEL SPRINGER SLOVAKIA, A.S. v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• afp 2014, 237

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 21666/09

  Being satisfied that there was a causal link between the pecuniary damage claimed and the violation of the Convention found (see, for example, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, §§ 75-7, ECHR 1999 III), it awards the applicant company totality of the sum sought under this head, that is EUR 6, 191.76, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 41827/02

  KOMMERSANT MOLDOVY v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 21666/09

  Therefore, the Court is of the view that by failing to examine the elements of the case necessary for the assessment of the applicant company's compliance with its "duties and responsibilities" under Article 10 of the Convention, the domestic courts cannot be said to have "applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in [that provision]" or to have "based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts" (see Kommersant Moldovy v. Moldova, no. 41827/02, § 38, 9 January 2007).
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 35090/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 21666/09

  The relevant domestic law has been summarised in, for example, Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 41262/05, §§ 53 et seq., 26 July 2011), and Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia ((dec.), no. 35090/07, 4 October 2011).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.11.2015 - 3690/10

  Meinungsfreiheit: Erfolg für Abtreibungsgegner

  Juni 2012; Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s../. Slowakei (Nr. 2), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 21666/09, Rdnr. 54, 7.
• EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 44561/11

  RID NOVAYA GAZETA AND ZAO NOVAYA GAZETA v. RUSSIA

  Therefore, the "interference" in the present case was not convincingly shown to have been "necessary in a democratic society" (see Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, § 24, 26 January 2017; Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 21666/09, § 54, 7 January 2014; Cumhuriyet Vakfı and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, §§ 67-69, 8 October 2013; and Novaya Gazeta and Milashina, cited above, § 75).
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 25147/09

  TERENTYEV v. RUSSIA

  Faced with the domestic courts' failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the interference, the Court finds that the domestic courts cannot be said to have "applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10" or to have "based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts" (see Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 21666/09, § 54, 7 January 2014; Cumhuriyet Vakfı and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, §§ 67-69, 8 October 2013; OOO Ivpress and Others, cited above, § 71; and Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no. 39128/05, §§ 47-49, 20 October 2009).

• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 67369/16

  RADIO BROADCASTING COMPANY B92 AD v. SERBIA

  Rn. 102 The Court is also of the view that by failing to examine the elements of the case that were necessary for the assessment of the applicant company's compliance with its "duties and responsibilities" under Article 10 of the Convention, and failing to give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the interference, the domestic courts cannot be said to have adequately "applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in [that provision]" or to have "based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts" (see, mutatis mutandis, Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 21666/09, § 54, 7 January 2014, and Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, § 24, 26 January 2017, and the authorities cited therein).
• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 22287/08

  [ENG]

  The Court further finds that the domestic courts cannot be said to have "applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10" or to have "based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts" (see Cumhuriyet Vakfı and Others, cited above, §§ 67-69, and Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 21666/09, § 54, 7 January 2014).
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 45083/06

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND MILASHINA v. RUSSIA

  In view of the above considerations, faced with the domestic courts' failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the interference in question, the Court finds that the domestic courts cannot be said to have "applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention" or to have "based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts" (see Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, § 24, 26 January 2017; Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 21666/09, § 54, 7 January 2014; Cumhuriyet Vakfı and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, §§ 67-69, 8 October 2013; and OOO Ivpress and Others, cited above, § 71).
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 44294/06

  [ENG]

  In view of its findings above (see paragraphs 86, 92 and 98), and faced with the domestic courts' failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify each of the three instances of interference, the Court finds that the domestic courts cannot be said to have "applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention" or to have "based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts" (see Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, § 24, 26 January 2017, Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 21666/09, § 54, 7 January 2014; Cumhuriyet Vakfı and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, §§ 67-69, 8 October 2013; and OOO Ivpress and Others, cited above, § 71).
• EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 16901/03

  [ENG]

  In this connection, the Court would reiterate the importance of an obligation to provide reasons for decisions concerning a restriction of the right to freedom of expression, which offers an important procedural safeguard against arbitrary interferences with this right (see, mutatis mutandis, Boldea, cited above, § 61; Nur Radyo ve Televizyon Yayıncılığı A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 42284/05, §§ 49-50, 12 October 2010; Cumhuriyet Vakfı and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, §§ 67-68, 8 October 2013; and Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 21666/09, § 53, 7 January 2014).
• EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 65302/11

  CICMANEC v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court considers that the claim for compensation in respect of the costs paid by the applicant under the contested judgment in principle falls to be examined under the heading of pecuniary damage (see, for example, Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 21666/09, § 61, 7 January 2014, with a further reference).
• EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 39748/05

  [ENG]

  Nevertheless, faced with the domestic courts' failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the interference, the Court finds that the domestic courts cannot be said to have "applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention" or to have "based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts" (see Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 21666/09, § 54, 7 January 2014; Cumhuriyet Vakfı and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, §§ 67-69, 8 October 2013; and OOO Ivpress and Others, cited above, § 71).
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 13466/12

  MAC TV S.R.O. v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 10.07.2019 - 11867/09

  SOLTÉSZ AGAINST SLOVAKIA AND 3 OTHER CASES