Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TERENTYEV v. RUSSIA

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  TERENTYEV v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (29)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 25147/09

  The Court reiterates in this regard that it is not its task to substitute its own view for that of the domestic courts, which have the advantage of possessing direct knowledge of the situation and have all the evidence before them (see Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 54, ECHR 2016; Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06, § 54, ECHR 2011; and Saygili and Seyman v. Turkey, no. 51041/99, §§ 24-25, 27 June 2006).
• EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 21666/09

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 25147/09

  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 Vakfi 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, 27.06.2006 - 51041/99

  SAYGILI ET SEYMAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 25147/09

  The Court reiterates in this regard that it is not its task to substitute its own view for that of the domestic courts, which have the advantage of possessing direct knowledge of the situation and have all the evidence before them (see Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 54, ECHR 2016; Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06, § 54, ECHR 2011; and Saygili and Seyman v. Turkey, no. 51041/99, §§ 24-25, 27 June 2006).

 
• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 25147/09

  The fundamental principles concerning the question whether an interference with freedom of expression is "necessary in a democratic society" are well established in the Court's case-law and have been summarised as follows (see, most recently, Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland [GC], no. 16354/06, § 48, 13 July 2012, and Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom (GC], no. 48876/08, § 100, ECHR 2013:.
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  SCHARSACH ET NEWS VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 25147/09

  The Court reiterates that the applicant is entitled to recover the sum that he paid in damages, by reason of its direct link with the national courts" judgments which the Court has found to be in breach of his right to freedom of expression (see Stankiewicz and Others v. Poland, no. 48723/07, § 87, 14 October 2014; Yordanova and Toshev v. Bulgaria, no. 5126/05, § 78, 2 October 2012; and Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 50, ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 28255/07

  CUMHURIYET VAKFI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 25147/09

  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 Vakfi 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, 15.06.2021 - 35786/19

  MELIKE c. TURQUIE

  À la lumière de l'ensemble des considérations qui précèdent, la Cour conclut que, en l'absence de motifs pertinents et suffisants fournis pour justifier la mesure litigieuse, les juridictions nationales ne peuvent être considérées comme ayant appliqué des règles conformes aux principes consacrés à l'article 10 de la Convention et ce, de surcroît, en se fondant sur une appréciation acceptable des faits pertinents (Terentyev c. Russie, no 25147/09, § 24, 26 janvier 2017, et les références qui y figurent, Saygili et Karata?Ÿ c. Turquie, no 6875/05, § 43, 16 janvier 2018 et Kula c. Turquie, no 20233/06, § 52, 19 juin 2018).
• EGMR - 9163/13 (anhängig)

  MOCHALOV v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  (b) Did the domestic courts adduce "relevant and sufficient" reasons for the interference and base their conclusions on an acceptable assessment of the facts (see Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 196-97, 204-08 and 212-20, ECHR 2015 (extracts) as regards pertinent general principles and factors, and Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, §§ 20-24, 26 January 2017 as regards the approach)? In particular, did the courts specify which parts of the impugned article were problematic, and draw their own conclusions from the linguistic studies of the material (see paragraph 23 of the Plenary Supreme Court's ruling no. 11 of 28 June 2011)? Did the courts take due account of the factors mentioned in sub-section (a) above, in particular having regard to the requirements imposed on the domestic courts by the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia in its ruling no. 21 of 27 June 2013 (in particular, paragraphs 5 and 8)?.

  (b) Did the domestic courts adduce "relevant and sufficient" reasons for the interference and base their conclusions on an acceptable assessment of the facts (see Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 196-97, 204-08 and 212-20, ECHR 2015 (extracts) as regards pertinent general principles and factors, and Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, §§ 20-24, 26 January 2017 as regards the approach)? In particular:.

• EGMR, 23.07.2019 - 8860/13

  GÜRBÜZ ET BAYAR c. TURQUIE

  En ce qui concerne le premier point, nous rappelons qu'en vertu du principe de subsidiarité, il appartient d'abord aux autorités nationales d'examiner conformément aux critères développés dans la jurisprudence de la Cour les allégations de violation de la Convention portées devant elles (voir, par exemple, Terentyev c. Russie, no 25147/09, 26 janvier 2017, Moskalev c. Russie, no 44045/05, 7 novembre 2017, ou encore Ögrü et autres c. Turquie, no 60087/10, 19 décembre 2017).

 
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 20233/06

  KULA c. TURQUIE

  Dès lors, en l'absence de motifs pertinents et suffisants fournis par les juridictions nationales pour justifier l'ingérence litigieuse, la Cour estime que les juridictions nationales ne peuvent être considérées comme ayant appliqué des règles conformes aux principes consacrés à l'article 10 de la Convention et ce, de surcroît, en se fondant sur une appréciation acceptable des faits pertinents (Terentyev c. Russie, no 25147/09, § 24, 26 janvier 2017, et les références qui y figurent, et Saygili et Karatas, précité, § 43 ; voir aussi Annen c. Allemagne, no 3690/10, § 73, 26 novembre 2015).
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 60087/10

  ÖGRÜ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Au contraire, en l'espèce, les juridictions internes n'ayant pas effectué une quelconque mise en balance des différents intérêts en présence, la Cour estime qu'elles ne peuvent pas être considérées comme ayant appliqué des règles conformes aux principes consacrés par l'article 11 de la Convention et s'être fondées sur une appréciation acceptable des faits pertinents (pour une approche similaire concernant l'article 10 de la Convention, Terentyev c. Russie, no 25147/09, § 24, 26 janvier 2017 et les référence qui y figurent, et aussi, Annen c. Allemagne, no 3690/10, § 73, 26 novembre 2015).
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 67369/16

  RADIO BROADCASTING COMPANY B92 AD v. SERBIA

  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, 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, 18.05.2021 - 43351/12

  OOO INFORMATSIONNOYE AGENTSTVO TAMBOV-INFORM v. RUSSIA

  However, faced with the domestic courts" failure to provide relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the "interference" the Court finds that they 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, with further references, Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, § 24, 26 January 2017, and MAC TV s.r.o. v. Slovakia, no. 13466/12, §§ 53-58, 28 November 2017).
• EGMR, 29.10.2019 - 36226/11

  HATICE ÇOBAN c. TURQUIE

  À la lumière de tout ce qui précède, la Cour estime que, dans les circonstances de l'espèce, les juridictions nationales ne peuvent être considérées comme ayant appliqué des règles conformes aux principes consacrés à l'article 10 de la Convention, ni, de surcroît, comme s'étant fondées sur une appréciation acceptable des faits pertinents (Saygili et Karatas, précité, § 43 et Terentyev c. Russie, no 25147/09, § 24, 26 janvier 2017, et les références qui y figurent ; voir aussi Annen c. Allemagne, no 3690/10, § 73, 26 novembre 2015).
• 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, 28.09.2021 - 46173/15

  SHEVELEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 15520/06

  ERDOGAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 68537/13

  IBRAGIMOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 79671/13

  GHEORGHE-FLORIN POPESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 50495/08

  ALTINTAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR - 26410/10 (anhängig)

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND NIKITINSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 12562/11 (anhängig)

  LOBANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 61391/11 (anhängig)

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND ANIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 11146/16 (anhängig)

  GRITSEVICH AND KIMAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 1097/10 (anhängig)

  KASHAPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 56439/14 (anhängig)

  GIRIN AND NOVAYA GAZETA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 17942/17 (anhängig)

  LUZGIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 14856/16 (anhängig)

  PODCHASOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 72797/11 (anhängig)

  DZEUKOZHEV v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR - 30635/13 (anhängig)

  BOKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 35043/13 (anhängig)

  NOVAYA GAZETA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 35034/13 (anhängig)

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 81060/12

  FATULLAYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR - 25309/15 (anhängig)

  BYVSHEV v. RUSSIA