Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SKUDAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SKUDAYEVA v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 24014/07

  The interference must therefore be seen in the context of the essential role of a free press in ensuring the proper functioning of a democratic society (see, among many other authorities, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 62, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  BLECIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 24014/07

  Regarding the Government's objection that the applicant had not suffered any significant disadvantage within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention - which was raised for the first time on 28 November 2013 (see paragraph 23 above) - the Court observes that it concerns a question of admissibility in the narrow sense of that term rather than a matter which goes to the Court's jurisdiction (see, by contrast, Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III, and Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, § 93, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 28070/06

  A. v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 24014/07

  In order for Article 8 of the Convention to come into play, however, an attack on a person's reputation must attain a certain level of seriousness and its manner must cause prejudice to the personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life (see A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009, and Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 83, 7 February 2012).
• EGMR - 28473/12 (anhängig)

  KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 24014/07

  The Court is mindful of the fundamentally subsidiary role of the Convention system (see Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic [GC], nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12, § 175, ECHR 2016).

• EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 6865/19

  FEILAZOO v. MALTA

  However, the Court reiterates that under Rule 55 of the Rules of Court, any plea of inadmissibility must have been raised by the respondent Contracting Party - in so far as the nature of the objection and the circumstances so allowed - in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application (see N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 44, ECHR 2002-X; Markus v. Latvia, no. 17483/10, § 50, 11 June 2020 and Skudayeva v. Russia, no. 24014/07, § 27, 5 March 2019) and failure to do so will lead the Court to find that the Government are estopped from raising the objection (ibid.).
• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 2840/10

  OOO MEMO v. RUSSIA

  The authorities therefore failed to demonstrate that there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the interference in question and the legitimate aim pursued (see, among others, Romanenko and Others v. Russia, no. 11751/03, § 49, 8 October 2009; OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v. Russia, no. 39748/05, § 46, 25 April 2017; Cheltsova v. Russia, no. 44294/06, § 100, 13 June 2017; Skudayeva v. Russia, no. 24014/07, § 39, 5 March 2019; Nadtoka v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29097/08, § 50, 8 October 2019; Tolmachev v. Russia, no. 42182/11, § 56, 2 June 2020; and Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 38770/17

  MIFSUD AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  Furthermore, under Rule 55 of the Rules of Court, any plea of inadmissibility must have been raised by the respondent Contracting Party - in so far as the nature of the objection and the circumstances so allowed - in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application (see N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 44, ECHR 2002-X, and Skudayeva v. Russia, no. 24014/07, § 27, 5 March 2019).

 
• EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 46232/10

  TIMAKOV AND OOO ID RUBEZH v. RUSSIA

  The Court furthermore notes that each instance of the interference must be seen within the context of the essential role of a free press in ensuring the proper functioning of a democratic society (see, among many other authorities, Skudayeva v. Russia, no. 24014/07, § 30, 5 March 2019).
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 27474/08

  PIROGOV c. RUSSIE

  Elle note qu'en l'espèce le montant accordé à L.M. à titre de dommages et intérêts, à savoir 30 000 RUB (environ 850 EUR), n'était pas négligeable eu égard à la pratique interne (comparer avec Kunitsyna c. Russie, no 9406/05, § 24, 13 décembre 2016 - 12 000 RUB ; Terentyev c. Russie, no 25147/09, § 8, 26 janvier 2017 - 5 000 RUB ; OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad, précité, § 10 - 8 000 RUB ; Cheltsova, précité, § 29 - de 10 000 RUB à 15 000 RUB dans trois procédures distinctes ; et Skudayeva c. Russie, no 24014/07, § 8, 5 mars 2019 - 1 500 RUB).
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 44652/18

  PONTA c. ROUMANIE

  L'ingérence dans l'exercice par le requérant de son droit à la liberté d'expression n'était, par conséquent, pas « nécessaire dans une société démocratique'(voir, mutatis mutandis, Skudayeva c. Russie, no 24014/07, §§ 36-40, 5 mars 2019 et Tökés c. Roumanie, nos 15976/16 et 50461/17, §§ 85-99, 27 avril 2021).
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 62364/10

  IVANOV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle en outre qu'elle a déjà conclu à la violation de l'article 10 de la Convention dans de nombreuses affaires concernant la Russie, au motif que les juridictions nationales avaient failli à appliquer au niveau interne les principes pertinents (voir, parmi d'autres, OOO Ivpress et autres c. Russie, nos 33501/04 et 3 autres, §§ 67-80, 22 janvier 2013, Terentyev c. Russie, no 25147/09, §§ 18-25, 26 janvier 2017, OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad c. Russie, no 39748/05, §§ 32-47, 25 avril 2017, Cheltsova c. Russie, no 44294/06, §§ 69-101, 13 juin 2017, Skudayeva c. Russie, no 24014/07, §§ 29-40, 5 mars 2019, et Novaya Gazeta et Milashina c. Russie [comité], no 4097/06, §§ 50-58, 2 juillet 2019).
• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 42182/11

  TOLMACHEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court furthermore notes that the interference must be seen within the context of the essential role of a free press in ensuring the proper functioning of a democratic society (see, among many other authorities, Skudayeva v. Russia, no. 24014/07, § 30, 5 March 2019).
• EGMR, 10.01.2023 - 77086/14

  SHENDEROVICH v. RUSSIA

  The domestic courts appear to have acted on the assumption that Mr Vasilyev's interests in protecting his reputation prevailed over the applicant's interest as a journalist in informing the public, thus failing to strike a fair balance when protecting the two competing values guaranteed by the Convention (see Skudayeva v. Russia, no. 24014/07, § 36, 5 March 2019).
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 74389/10

  PRONYAKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The domestic courts appear to have acted on the assumption that the claimants" respective interests in protecting their reputation prevailed over the defendants" interest in informing the public, thus failing to strike a fair balance when protecting the two competing values guaranteed by the Convention (see Skudayeva v. Russia, no. 24014/07, § 46, 5 March 2019).
• EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 79671/13

  GHEORGHE-FLORIN POPESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 15.11.2022 - 43744/17

  POIENARU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 25.11.2021 - 29385/11

  EKA MIKELADZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 81060/12

  FATULLAYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 17.06.2021 - 14615/19

  MATTEI AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 24788/17

  CANÈ AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 29.10.2019 - 42113/09

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND BORODYANSKIY v. RUSSIA