Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHARLAMOV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KHARLAMOV v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 27447/07

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 105, ECHR 2012, and Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298).

  The most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court is called for when, as in the present case, the measures taken or sanctions imposed by the national authority are capable of discouraging participation in debates on matters of legitimate public concern (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 35, Series A no. 298).

• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 27447/07

  The test of necessity requires the Court to determine whether the interference corresponded to a "pressing social need", whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify it were relevant and sufficient (see, among many other authorities, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 17089/03

  SORGUÇ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 27447/07

  The principle of open discussion of issues of professional interest must thus be construed as an element of a broader concept of academic autonomy which encompasses the academics" freedom to express their opinion about the institution or system in which they work (see Mustafa Erdogan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 346/04 and 39779/04, § 40, 27 May 2014, and Sorguç v. Turkey, no. 17089/03, § 35, 23 June 2009).

 
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 27570/03

  Nowaja Gaseta Woronesch ./. Rußland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 27447/07

  They also know that value judgments should be based - at least to some degree - on factual circumstances: "even where a statement amounts to a value judgment, the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether there exists a sufficient factual basis for the impugned statement, since even a value judgment without any factual basis to support it may be excessive" (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 43, ECHR 2001-II; among Russian cases see, for example, Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia, no. 27570/03, 21 December 2010, § 38).
• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 346/04

  MUSTAFA ERDOGAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 27447/07

  The principle of open discussion of issues of professional interest must thus be construed as an element of a broader concept of academic autonomy which encompasses the academics" freedom to express their opinion about the institution or system in which they work (see Mustafa Erdogan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 346/04 and 39779/04, § 40, 27 May 2014, and Sorguç v. Turkey, no. 17089/03, § 35, 23 June 2009).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 27447/07

  They also know that value judgments should be based - at least to some degree - on factual circumstances: "even where a statement amounts to a value judgment, the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether there exists a sufficient factual basis for the impugned statement, since even a value judgment without any factual basis to support it may be excessive" (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 43, ECHR 2001-II; among Russian cases see, for example, Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia, no. 27570/03, 21 December 2010, § 38).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 27447/07

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 105, ECHR 2012, and Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298).
• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 27447/07

  The Court has previously observed that employees owe to their employer a duty of loyalty, reserve and discretion (see, for instance, Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 85, 26 February 2009, and Heinisch v. Germany, no. 28274/08, § 64, ECHR 2011 (extracts)), and that in striking a fair balance the limits of the right to freedom of expression and the reciprocal rights and obligations specific to the professional environment must be taken into account (see Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06, § 74, ECHR 2011).

• EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 52969/13

  WOJCZUK v. POLAND

  On the other hand, within the context of Article 10 the Court has considered that the protection of a university's authority was a mere institutional interest, which did not necessarily have the same strength as "the protection of the reputation or rights of others" within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (see Kharlamov v. Russia, no. 27447/07, § 29, 8 October 2015).

  The present case differs from the Court's relevant case-law about universities, where the issues of concern concerned exclusively academic professional standards and were raised in public (see Kharlamov v. Russia, no. 27447/07, § 29, 8 October 2015; Sorguç v. Turkey, no. 17089/03, § 35, 23 June 2009; and Kula v. Turkey, no. 20233/06, § 38, 19 June 2018).

• EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 8895/10

  ÄRZTEKAMMER FÜR WIEN AND DORNER v. AUSTRIA

  However, the Court can change this classification under its supervisory role (see Kharlamov v. Russia, no. 27447/07, § 31, 8 October 2015; Pinto Pinheiro Marques v. Portugal, no. 26671/09, § 43, 22 January 2015).
• EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 23497/05

  ERDENER c. TURQUIE

  S'agissant de la personne visée par les propos de la requérante, la Cour note que l'Université de Baskent a disposé du droit de se défendre contre des allégations diffamatoires en vertu des dispositions pertinentes du droit interne (voir, mutatis mutandis, Steel et Morris c. Royaume Uni, no 68416/01, § 94, CEDH 2005-II; Kulis et Rózycki c. Pologne, no 27209/03, § 35, 6 octobre 2009, et Kharlamov c. Russie, no 27447/07, § 25, 8 octobre 2015).

 
• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 78873/13

  FREITAS RANGEL v. PORTUGAL

  The Court also notes that the protection of the reputation of a legal entity does not have the same strength as the protection of the reputation or rights of individuals (compare Uj v. Hungary, no. 23954/10, § 22, 19 July 2011, and Kharlamov v. Russia, no. 27447/07, § 29, 8 October 2015).
• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 2840/10

  OOO MEMO v. RUSSIA

  In its judgments against Russia adopted subsequently to that in the case of Romanenko and Others, in the absence of a dispute between the parties regarding the existence of a legitimate aim, the Court, when examining complaints under Article 10 stemming from the defamation proceedings brought by a remand prison and its two officers (see Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 41, 4 April 2013), by a university (see Kharlamov v. Russia, no. 27447/07, § 25, 8 October 2015), by the Chief Military Prosecutor's Office of Russia (see Novaya Gazeta and Milashina, cited above, § 62), by the electoral commission and the body of the executive of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation as well as a regional branch of the United Russia party (see Ostanina v. Russia, no. 22169/11, § 19, 17 April 2018), or by the body of the executive of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation (see Margulev v. Russia, no. 15449/09, § 45, 8 October 2019, and Kommersant and Others v. Russia, nos. 37482/10 and 37486/10, 23 June 2020), focused on the assessment of proportionality of an interference.
• EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 15355/14

  KRYSZTOFIAK v. POLAND

  In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that the interference in the present case was necessary in a democratic society and that the reasons adduced by the domestic courts to justify it were "relevant and sufficient" (see, mutatis mutandis, Dorota Kania v. Poland, no. 49132/11, § 34, 19 July 2016, and Wabl v. Austria, no. 24773/94, § 44, 21 March 2000; see also, by contrast, Kharlamov v. Russia, no. 27447/07, 8 October 2015).