Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KARMAN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Not necessary to examine Art. 6 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 29372/02

  Journalistic freedom covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313, § 38).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 29372/02

  In examining the particular circumstances of the case, the Court will take the following elements into account: the position of the applicant, the position of the plaintiff in the defamation claim, the subject matter of the publication and qualification of the contested statement by the domestic courts (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 35, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  SCHARSACH ET NEWS VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 29372/02

  The Court further recalls that use of the term "Nazi" - or, as in the present case, a derivative term "neo-fascist" - does not automatically justify a conviction for defamation on the ground of the special stigma attached to it (see Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 43, ECHR 2003-XI).

 
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 29372/02

  The Court recalls in this connection that it has been its constant approach to require very strong reasons for justifying restrictions on political speech, for broad restrictions imposed in individual cases would undoubtedly affect respect for the freedom of expression in general in the State concerned (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 29372/02

  The Court recalls in this connection that it has been its constant approach to require very strong reasons for justifying restrictions on political speech, for broad restrictions imposed in individual cases would undoubtedly affect respect for the freedom of expression in general in the State concerned (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95

  CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 29372/02

  Referring to the Constantinescu v. Romania case (no. 28871/95, ECHR 2000-VIII), the Government claimed that the applicant had had a real opportunity to criticise Mr Terentyev's conduct without resorting to the insulting word "neofascist".
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 28525/95

  UNABHÄNGIGE INITIATIVE INFORMATIONSVIELFALT v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 29372/02

  It further recalls that the degree of precision for establishing the well-foundedness of a criminal charge by a competent court can hardly be compared to that which ought to be observed by a journalist when expressing his opinion on a matter of public concern, for the standards applied when assessing someone's political opinions in terms of morality are quite different from those required for establishing an offence under criminal law (see Scharsach, loc. cit.; Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt v. Austria, no. 28525/95, § 46, ECHR 2002-I; and Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften-Verlags GmbH v. Austria, no. 58547/00, § 39, 27 October 2005).
• EGMR, 27.10.2005 - 58547/00

  WIRTSCHAFTS-TREND ZEITSCHRIFTEN-GESELLSCHAFT MBH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 29372/02

  It further recalls that the degree of precision for establishing the well-foundedness of a criminal charge by a competent court can hardly be compared to that which ought to be observed by a journalist when expressing his opinion on a matter of public concern, for the standards applied when assessing someone's political opinions in terms of morality are quite different from those required for establishing an offence under criminal law (see Scharsach, loc. cit.; Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt v. Austria, no. 28525/95, § 46, ECHR 2002-I; and Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften-Verlags GmbH v. Austria, no. 58547/00, § 39, 27 October 2005).

• OLG Stuttgart, 23.09.2015 - 4 U 101/15

  Persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzung: Bezeichnung eines "Bloggers" als "bekannter …

  Nichts anderes gilt für den davon abgeleiteten Begriff "Neonazi" (…EGMR NJW 2014, 3501 Rn. 45) und den Begriff "Neofaschist" (EGMR, ebenda, unter Hinweis auf ein Urteil vom 14.12.2000, 29372/02 Nr. 40; OLG Köln AfP 1993, 755).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Mutatis mutandis, dans l'arrêt Karman c. Russie (no 29372/02, 14 décembre 2006), la Cour a constaté une violation de l'article 10 de la Convention pour la condamnation d'un journaliste qui avait qualifié un homme politique de «néofasciste local».
• EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 5709/09

  Die Meinungsfreiheit in der politischen Auseinandersetzung

  Gemäß dem Prüfungsmaßstab der "Notwendigkeit in einer demokratischen Gesellschaft" hat der Gerichtshof darüber zu entscheiden, ob der Eingriff in Bezug auf das rechtmäßig verfolgte Ziel verhältnismäßig war und ob die von den nationalen Behörden zu seiner Rechtfertigung vorgebrachten Gründe "zutreffend und ausreichend" waren (siehe z. B. Feldek./. Slowakei, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 29032/95, Rdnr. 73, ECHR 2001-VIII, und Karman./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 29372/02, Rdnr. 32, 14 Dezember 2006).

 
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 40984/07

  FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court notes in this connection that it has been its constant approach to require very strong reasons for justifying restrictions on political speech, since broad restrictions imposed in individual cases would undoubtedly affect respect for the freedom of expression in general in the State concerned (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 36, 14 December 2006).
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 55495/08

  GENNER v. AUSTRIA

  The Court further considers that the use of the term "Nazi" does not automatically justify a conviction for defamation on the ground of the special stigma attached to it (see Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 43, ECHR 2003-XI, concerning the term "neo-fascist" see Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 39, 14 December 2006.
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 17391/06

  PRIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that it has been its constant approach, under Article 10, to require very strong reasons for justifying restrictions on political speech or serious matters of public interest (see, with necessary changes made, Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 36, 14 December 2006; Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 4260/04

  ANDRUSHKO v. RUSSIA

  In so doing, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and, moreover, that they based their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 32, 14 December 2006, and Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, §§ 26-27, 21 July 2005, with further references).

  A lack of procedural fairness and equality may give rise to a breach of Article 10 (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 95, ECHR 2005-II, Kwiecien, cited above, §§ 46 and 55; Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 48, Series A no. 236; Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 42, 14 December 2006; and Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 45, ECHR 2001-II).

• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 73219/01

  FILATENKO v. RUSSIA

  In so doing, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and, moreover, that they based their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see, most recently, Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 32, 14 December 2006, and Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, §§ 26-27, 21 July 2005, with further references).

  On a more general level, the Court reiterates its constant approach that the standard of proof for establishing the well-foundedness of a criminal charge can hardly be compared to that which ought to be observed by a journalist when expressing his opinion on a matter of public concern, as the standards applied when assessing someone's actions in terms of morality are quite different from those required for establishing an offence under criminal law (see, mutatis mutandis, Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 42, 14 December 2006; Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt v. Austria, no. 28525/95, § 46, ECHR 2002-I; and Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften-Verlags GmbH v. Austria, no. 58547/00, § 39, 27 October 2005).

• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 10877/04

  SERGEY KUZNETSOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates in this connection that it has been its constant approach to require very strong reasons for justifying restrictions on political speech or serious matters of public interest such as corruption in the judiciary, as broad restrictions imposed in individual cases would undoubtedly affect respect for the freedom of expression in general in the State concerned (see, with necessary changes made, Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 36, 14 December 2006; Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 03.12.2013 - 64520/10

  UNGVÁRY AND IRODALOM KFT. v. HUNGARY

  In certain cases, the Court has objected to the restrictive definition of a term (e.g. the term "neo-fascist", see Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 40, 14 December 2006) resulting in a selective interpretation which may warrant different facts to be proven.
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  KASABOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 34202/06

  BERLADIR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 27474/08

  PIROGOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 37406/03

  DYUNDIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 39900/06

  Semik-Orzech ./. Polen
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 28949/03

  SANOCKI c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 47942/17

  CHIRIKOV AND NEKRASOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 49132/11

  DOROTA KANIA c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 33938/08

  ANDRUSHCHENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 9406/05

  KUNITSYNA v. RUSSIA