Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 28577/05 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,53426) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE SPRL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93
BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 28577/05
By reason of the "duties and responsibilities" inherent in the exercise of the freedom of expression, the safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism or, in the words of the House of Lords, "the standards of responsible journalism" (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III). - EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 26132/95
BERGENS TIDENDE ET AUTRES c. NORVEGE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 28577/05
These factors, in turn, require consideration of other elements such as the authority of the source (Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, cited above), whether the newspaper had conducted a reasonable amount of research before publication (Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313, § 37), whether the newspaper presented the story in a reasonably balanced manner (Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no. 26132/95, § 57, ECHR 2000-IV) and whether the newspaper gave the persons defamed the opportunity to defend themselves (Bergens Tidende and Others, cited above, § 58). - EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 46311/99
McVICAR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 28577/05
In assessing the legitimacy of statements of fact the Court considers that it is not, in principle, incompatible with Article 10 to place on a defendant in libel proceedings who wishes to rely on the defence of justification the onus of proving to the civil standard the truth of defamatory statements (see, inter alia, Alithia Publishing Company Ltd and Constantinides v. Cyprus, no. 17550/03, § 68, 22 May 2008; McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, § 87, ECHR 2002-III; and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 93, ECHR 2005-II).
- EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01
STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 28577/05
In assessing the legitimacy of statements of fact the Court considers that it is not, in principle, incompatible with Article 10 to place on a defendant in libel proceedings who wishes to rely on the defence of justification the onus of proving to the civil standard the truth of defamatory statements (see, inter alia, Alithia Publishing Company Ltd and Constantinides v. Cyprus, no. 17550/03, § 68, 22 May 2008; McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, § 87, ECHR 2002-III; and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 93, ECHR 2005-II). - EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 17550/03
ALITHIA PUBLISHING COMPANY LTD & CONSTANTINIDES v. CYPRUS
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 28577/05
In assessing the legitimacy of statements of fact the Court considers that it is not, in principle, incompatible with Article 10 to place on a defendant in libel proceedings who wishes to rely on the defence of justification the onus of proving to the civil standard the truth of defamatory statements (see, inter alia, Alithia Publishing Company Ltd and Constantinides v. Cyprus, no. 17550/03, § 68, 22 May 2008; McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, § 87, ECHR 2002-III; and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 93, ECHR 2005-II). - EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90
PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 28577/05
These factors, in turn, require consideration of other elements such as the authority of the source (Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, cited above), whether the newspaper had conducted a reasonable amount of research before publication (Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313, § 37), whether the newspaper presented the story in a reasonably balanced manner (Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no. 26132/95, § 57, ECHR 2000-IV) and whether the newspaper gave the persons defamed the opportunity to defend themselves (Bergens Tidende and Others, cited above, § 58).
- EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 61949/08
SEFERI YILMAZ c. TURQUIE
En effet, les conversations téléphoniques publiées et les autres faits relatés dans les articles n'ont été ni dissimulés ni modifiés, les propos n'ayant pas davantage été déformés ou cités de manière inexacte (voir De Carolis et France Télévisions c. France, no 29313/10, § 59, 21 janvier 2016, a contrario, Radio France et autres c. France, no 53984/00, § 38, CEDH 2004-II, The Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 28577/05, 10 février 2009, et, mutatis mutandis, Couderc et Hachette Filipacchi Associés, précité, § 144). - EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03
KASABOVA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 29313/10
DE CAROLIS ET FRANCE TELEVISIONS c. FRANCE
Ses déclarations n'ont été ni dissimulées ni modifiées par des coupes au montage, ses propos n'ayant pas davantage été déformés ou cités de manière inexacte (voir, a contrario, Radio France et autres, précité, § 38, The Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 28577/05, 10 février 2009, et, mutatis mutandis, Couderc et Hachette Filipacchi Associés c. France [GC], no 40454/07, § 144, 10 novembre 2015).