Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NOVAYA GAZETA V VORONEZHE v. RUSSIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• lehofer.at (Kurzinformation)

  Bericht über Unregelmäßigkeiten bei der Verwendung öffentlicher Gelder im öffentlichen Interesse

Wird zitiert von ... (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 25147/09

  TERENTYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has on many occasions pointed to the deficiency in the Russian law on defamation whereby it refers uniformly to "statements" and posits the assumption - as the present case illustrates - that any such "statement" is amenable to proof in civil proceedings (see Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia, no. 27570/03, § 52, 21 December 2010; Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, §§ 50-52, 14 October 2010; Fedchenko v. Russia, no. 33333/04, §§ 36-41, 11 February 2010; Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 47, 31 July 2007; Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 38, 14 December 2006; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 29, 5 October 2006; and Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, § 29, 21 July 2005).
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 33501/04

  [ENG]

  It has been the Court's constant position that the limits of permissible criticism are wider with regard to a government official in the course of performance of his or her functions than in relation to a private citizen (see Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia, no. 27570/03, § 47, 21 December 2010, Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 45, 31 July 2007, and, as a classic authority, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 46, Series A no. 236).
• EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 22649/08

  OOO REGNUM v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers that to require the applicant company to prove the truthfulness of statements copied from the FCPS's letter, while at the same time disregarding, or giving no reasons for rejecting, the evidence presented by the applicant company to establish the authenticity of their source of information, is not consistent with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention (see, for similar reasoning, Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia, no. 27570/03, § 56, 21 December 2010, and Aquilina and Others v. Malta, no. 28040/08, § 49, 14 June 2011).

• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 27447/07

  KHARLAMOV v. RUSSIA

  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, 02.10.2018 - 7972/09

  FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  The plaintiff did not contest that fact and, in any event, neither adherence to the political parties concerned nor resigning from either of them constituted an offence under Russian law at the material time (see, mutatis mutandis, Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia, no. 27570/03, § 50, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 39748/05

  [ENG]

  The Court has on many occasions pointed to the deficiency in Russian law on defamation referring uniformly to "statements" and positing the assumption - as the present case illustrates - that any such "statement" is amenable to proof in civil proceedings (see Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia, no. 27570/03, § 52, 21 December 2010; Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, §§ 50-52, 14 October 2010; Fedchenko, cited above, § 36; Dyuldin and Kislov, cited above, § 47; Karman, cited above, § 38; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 29, 5 October 2006; and Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, § 29, 21 July 2005).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 9406/05

  [ENG]

  The Court has on many occasions pinpointed the structural deficiency of the Russian law on defamation, as interpreted and applied at the relevant time, which made no distinction between value judgments and statements of fact, referring uniformly to "information" ("svedeniya"), and proceeded on the assumption that any such "information" was susceptible to proof in civil proceedings (see Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, § 29, 21 July 2005; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 29, 5 October 2006; Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 38, 14 December 2006; Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 47, 31 July 2007; Fedchenko v. Russia, no. 33333/04, §§ 36-41, 11 February 2010; Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, §§ 50-52, 14 October 2010; Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia, no. 27570/03, § 52, 21 December 2010; and OOO Ivpress and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 16224/05

  [ENG]

  However, even where the statement amounts to a value judgment, the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether a sufficient factual basis for the impugned statement exists, 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; with regard to Russian cases, see, for example, Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia, no. 27570/03, § 38, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 14.06.2018 - 40597/08

  RUNGAINIS v. LATVIA

  Referring to Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia (no. 27570/03, § 51, 21 December 2010), he argued that the information that he had provided to the journalists had constituted a value judgment, since he had explicitly told the journalists that this information still needed to be verified by the Bank's internal audit.