Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALEKSEY PETROV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Neu Zitiert selbst (27)

• EGMR, 24.08.1999 - 31135/96

  SALTUK contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  For this reason, the Court held that the Convention does not guarantee a right to a good reputation as such (see Saltuk v. Turkey (dec.), no. 31135/96, 24 August 1999).
• EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 58729/00

  ABEBERRY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  However, in several cases concerning complaints brought under Article 10 of the Convention the Court ruled that a person's reputation is protected by Article 8 of the Convention as part of the right to respect for "private life" (see Chauvy and Others v. France, no. 64915/01, § 70 in fine, ECHR 2004-VI; Abeberry v. France, (dec.), no. 58729/00, 21 September 2004; and Leempoel & S.A. ED.
• EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 46300/99

  Recht auf faires Strafverfahren (staatliche Einflussnahme auf die Ausübung der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  As regards the complaint (no. 4.4) that the Sofia City Court judgments in the two cases were not amenable to appeal, the Court observes that, according to its established case-law, Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee a right of appeal as such (see, among many other authorities, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 59, Series A no. 316-B, and Marpa Zeeland B.V. and Metal Welding B.V. v. the Netherlands, no. 46300/99, § 48 in limine, ECHR 2004-X (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 4591/04

  GUNNARSSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  It left the point open in Gunnarsson v. Iceland ((dec.), no 4591/04, 20 October 2005), but later, in White v. Sweden, a case brought under Article 8, found that the publication of defamatory statements relating to the applicant fell within the scope of his "private life" within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 and that the applicant's reputation was a value guaranteed by that provision (see White v. Sweden, no. 42435/02, §§ 19 and 26, 19 September 2006).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 64772/01

  LEEMPOEL AND S.A. ED. CINE REVUE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  Ciné Revue v. Belgium, no. 64772/01, § 67, 9 November 2006).
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

  RUMYANA IVANOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  It is not the Court's task to ascertain whether the way it resolved those points was correct in terms of Bulgarian law, because, not being a court of appeal in respect of the national courts, it cannot deal with errors of fact or law allegedly made by them (see, among many other authorities, Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 43, 14 February 2008, with further references).
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 78060/01

  PETRINA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  It confirmed that position, in response to a ratione materiae objection by the Romanian Government, in Petrina v. Romania (no. 78060/01, §§ 23-29, 14 October 2008, cited in Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, §§ 44 and 51, 30 March 2010), and, more recently, while saying that reputation had only sporadically been deemed to be an independent right, examined under Article 8 a complaint concerning the manner in which the Hungarian courts had dealt with a defamation claim against a politician (see Karakó, cited above, §§ 17-29).
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 28070/06

  A. v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  In contrast to Article 12 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights or Article 17 § 1 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations, it does not expressly provide for a right to protection against "attacks" on a person's "honour and reputation" (see A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 63, 9 April 2009).
• EGMR, 04.06.2009 - 21277/05

  STANDARD VERLAGS GMBH v. AUSTRIA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  In cases in which the Court has had to balance the protection of private life against the right to freedom of expression, it has always emphasised the contribution made by publications in the media to a debate of general interest (see, for instance, Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, §§ 66 and 68, ECHR 2001-I; Von Hannover, cited above, § 60; and Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria (no. 2), no. 21277/05 § 46, 4 June 2009).
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 17967/03

  STOYANOVA-TSAKOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  Secondly, the text of that court's extensively reasoned judgment makes it clear that it specifically addressed a number of arguments raised by both parties and dealt with all substantial issues in the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoyanova-Tsakova v. Bulgaria, no. 17967/03, § 26, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 20928/05

  PETRENCO v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 25576/04

  FLINKKILÄ AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 11796/85

  WIESINGER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

  PRETTO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 28168/95

  QUADRELLI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 41205/98

  TAMMER v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 37235/97

  SOFRI et AUTRES contre l'ITALIE
• EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 36822/02

  BRACCI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 45291/06

  PREVITI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  HELMERS c. SUÈDE
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

  GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Bei der Ausübung seiner Kontrollbefugnis ist es nicht Aufgabe des Gerichtshofs, an die Stelle der innerstaatlichen Gerichte zu treten, sondern es obliegt ihm, im Licht aller Umstände des Falles zu prüfen, ob die von den Gerichten aufgrund ihrer Ermessensbefugnis erlassenen Entscheidungen mit den geltend gemachten Konventionsbestimmungen in Einklang stehen (…Petrenco ./. Moldau, Nr. 20928/05, Rdnr. 54, 30. März 2010; Polanco Torres und Movilla Polanco ./. Spanien, Nr. 34147/06, Rdnr. 41, 21. September 2010, und Petrov ./. Bulgarien (Entsch.), Nr. 27103/04, 2. November 2010).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 39954/08

  Axel Springer AG in Art. 10 EMRK (Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung) verletzt durch …

  Bei der Ausübung seiner Kontrollbefugnis ist es nicht Aufgabe des Gerichtshofs, an die Stelle der innerstaatlichen Gerichte zu treten, sondern es obliegt ihm, im Licht aller Umstände des Falles zu prüfen, ob die von den Gerichten aufgrund ihrer Ermessensbefugnis erlassenen Entscheidungen mit den geltend gemachten Konventionsbestimmungen in Einklang stehen (…Petrenco ./. Moldau, Nr. 20928/05, Rdnr. 54, 30. März 2010;… Polanco Torres und Movilla Polanco, a.a.O., Rdnr. 41; und Petrov ./. Bulgarien (Entsch.), Nr. 27103/04, 2. November 2010).

  Nach seiner in diesem Urteil zitierten ständigen Rechtsprechung (…Petrenco ./. Moldau, Nr. 20928/05, Rdnr. 54, 30. März 2010, Petrov ./. Bulgarien (Entsch.), Nr. 27103/04, 2. November 2010, und Polanco Torres und Movilla Polanco ./. Spanien, Nr. 34147/06, Rdnr. 40, 21.

• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  The Court's task in exercising its supervisory function is not to take the place of the national authorities but rather to review, in the light of the case as a whole, whether the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation can be reconciled with the Convention provisions relied upon (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 60, ECHR 1999-III; Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 54, 30 March 2010; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, § 41, 21 September 2010; and Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010).

 
• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 4149/04

  AKSU c. TURQUIE

  The Court's task in exercising its supervision is not to take the place of the national authorities but rather to review, in the light of the case as a whole, the decisions that they have taken pursuant to their margin of appreciation (see Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 54, 30 March 2010; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, § 41, 21 September 2010; and Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010).
• EGMR, 21.06.2012 - 34124/06

  SCHWEIZERISCHE RADIO- UND FERNSEHGESELLSCHAFT SRG v. SWITZERLAND

  In exercising its supervisory function, the Court's task is not to take the place of the national courts, but rather to review, in the light of the case as a whole, whether the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation are compatible with the provisions of the Convention relied on (see Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 54, 30 March 2010; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, § 41, 21 September 2010; Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010, and Axel Springer AG, cited above, 86).
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  KASABOVA v. BULGARIA

  Given the nature of the conflicting interests, the States must be given a certain margin of appreciation in striking the appropriate balance between those rights (see A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 66, 9 April 2009, and Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010).
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 59631/09

  VERLAGSGRUPPE NEWS GMBH AND BOBI v. AUSTRIA

  In exercising its supervisory function, the Court's task is not to take the place of the national courts, but rather to review, in the light of the case as a whole, whether the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation are compatible with the provisions of the Convention relied on (see Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 54, 30 March 2010; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco, cited above, § 41; and Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

  DIMITROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The facts that some of the judges hearing the case ruled against them on some points or decided to proceed in a certain manner do not constitute such proof (see Sofri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 37235/97, ECHR 2003-VIII; Bracci v. Italy, no. 36822/02, § 52 in limine, 13 October 2005; Previti v. Italy (dec.), no. 45291/06, § 258 in limine, 8 December 2009; and Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010).
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 51151/06

  KÜCHL v. AUSTRIA

  In exercising its supervisory function, the Court's task is not to take the place of the national courts, but rather to review, in the light of the case as a whole, whether the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation are compatible with the provisions of the Convention relied on (see Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 54, 30 March 2010; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco, cited above, § 41; and Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010).
• EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 66456/09

  RISTAMÄKI AND KORVOLA v. FINLAND

  In exercising its supervisory function, the Court's task is not to take the place of the national courts, but rather to review, in the light of the case as a whole, whether the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation are compatible with the provisions of the Convention relied on (see Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 54, 30 March 2010; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco, cited above, § 41; and Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010).
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 6490/07

  ROTHE v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 35745/05

  NENKOVA-LALOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 29723/11

  SZIMA v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 49876/07

  RODIVILOV v. UKRAINE