Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 19.09.2013 - 23160/09 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,24906) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
STOJANOVIC v. CROATIA
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch) - juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Stojanovic v. Croatia
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (7) Neu Zitiert selbst (1)
- EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93
NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2013 - 23160/09
In this connection the Court reiterates that drawing inferences from the existing facts, such as, for example, attributing or imputing motives or intentions to someone's behaviour, is generally intended to convey opinions, and is thus more akin to value judgments (see Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 50, ECHR 1999-VIII).
- EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 28482/13
HERMAN-BISCHOFF c. ALLEMAGNE
Juni 2017, Stojanovic ./. Kroatien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 23160/09, Rdnr. 39, 19. - EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 14692/18
VUGDELIJA v. CROATIA
The remainder of the applicant's claim for costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts must be rejected, given that he will be able to have them reimbursed should the proceedings complained of be reopened (see, for example, Stojanovic v. Croatia, no. 23160/09, § 84, 19 September 2013). - EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 19362/18
MESIC v. CROATIA
In the light of its above finding that the applicant may rely on Article 10 of the Convention in the present case (see paragraphs 33-34 above), and having regard to its case-law (see, for example, Stojanovic v. Croatia, no. 23160/09, § 56, 19 September 2013), the Court finds that the judgment in question constituted an interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 § 1 of the Convention.
- EGMR, 27.07.2021 - 29856/13
SIC - SOCIEDADE INDEPENDENTE DE COMUNICAÇÃO v. PORTUGAL
If national law does not allow - or allows only partial - reparation to be made, Article 41 empowers the Court to afford the injured party such satisfaction as appears to it to be appropriate (see Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, §§ 32-33, ECHR 2000-XI, and Stojanovic v. Croatia, no. 23160/09, § 80, 19 September 2013). - EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 16087/18
JELCIC STEPINAC v. CROATIA
That claim must be rejected given that the applicant will be able to have those costs and expenses reimbursed should the third set of civil proceedings be reopened (see, for example, Stojanovic v. Croatia, no. 23160/09, § 84, 19 September 2013). - EGMR, 02.06.2022 - 12261/15
CROATIA BUS D.O.O. v. CROATIA
As regards the remainder of the claim for costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts, the Court is of the opinion that it must be rejected, given that the applicant company will be able to have those costs reimbursed should the proceedings complained of be reopened (see, for example Stojanovic v. Croatia, no. 23160/09, § 84, 19 September 2013). - EGMR, 17.03.2022 - 29525/15
PERO MARIC v. CROATIA
The remainder of the applicant's claim for costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts must be rejected, given that he will be able to have them reimbursed should the proceedings complained of be reopened (see, for example, Stojanovic v. Croatia, no. 23160/09, § 84, 19 September 2013).