Weitere Entscheidungen unten: EGMR, 01.10.2020 | EGMR, 28.02.2008

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 29492/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,45971
EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 29492/05 (https://dejure.org/2009,45971)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26.02.2009 - 29492/05 (https://dejure.org/2009,45971)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26. Februar 2009 - 29492/05 (https://dejure.org/2009,45971)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,45971) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

  • EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 28396/95

    Nichtberufung eines liechtensteiner Richters in das Amt des Gerichtspräsidenten

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 29492/05
    The Court further reiterates that Article 10 applies also to the workplace, and that civil servants, such as the applicant, enjoy the right to freedom of expression (see Vogt, cited above, § 53; Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, § 41, ECHR 1999-VII; Ahmed and Others v. the United Kingdom, 2 September 1998, § 56, Reports 1998-VI; Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, no. 39293/98, § 38, 29 February 2000; and Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. 14277/04, § 52, 12 February 2008).

    It is known from the Court's case-law that the status of a public or civil servant does not deprive the individual concerned of the protection of Article 10. In its recent judgment in the case of Guja v. Moldova, the Grand Chamber again reiterated that "the protection of Article 10 extends to the workplace in general and to public servants in particular" (see Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. 14277/04, § 52, ECHR 2008-...; see also Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 53, Series A no. 323; Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, § 41, ECHR 1999-VII; Ahmed and Others v. the United Kingdom, 2 September 1998, § 56, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI; Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, no. 39293/98, § 38, 29 February 2000).

  • EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46833/99

    DE DIEGO NAFRIA c. ESPAGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 29492/05
    This is particularly so in the case of civil servants since the very nature of civil service requires that a civil servant is bound by a duty of loyalty and discretion (see Vogt, cited above, § 53; Ahmed and Others, cited above, § 55; and De Diego Nafría v. Spain, no. 46833/99, § 37, 14 March 2002).

    This is particularly so in the case of civil servants since the very nature of civil service requires that a civil servant is bound by a duty of loyalty and discretion" (see Guja, cited above, § 70; Vogt, cited above, § 53; Ahmed and Others, cited above, § 55; De Diego Natria v. Spain, no. 46833/99, § 37, 14 March 2002).

  • EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

    Radikalenerlaß

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 29492/05
    They referred to the Court's case-law, which stated that "whenever civil servants" right to freedom of expression is in issue the "duties and responsibilities" referred to in Article 10 § 2 assume a special significance, which justifies leaving to the national authorities a certain margin of appreciation in determining whether the impugned interference is proportionate to the above aim" (the Government cited Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 53, Series A no. 323).

    It is known from the Court's case-law that the status of a public or civil servant does not deprive the individual concerned of the protection of Article 10. In its recent judgment in the case of Guja v. Moldova, the Grand Chamber again reiterated that "the protection of Article 10 extends to the workplace in general and to public servants in particular" (see Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. 14277/04, § 52, ECHR 2008-...; see also Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 53, Series A no. 323; Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, § 41, ECHR 1999-VII; Ahmed and Others v. the United Kingdom, 2 September 1998, § 56, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI; Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, no. 39293/98, § 38, 29 February 2000).

  • EGMR, 08.02.2001 - 47936/99

    PITKEVICH v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 29492/05
    In its decision on inadmissibility in the case Pitkevich v. Russia (no. 47936/99, 8 February 2001) - concerning the dismissal of a judge who misused her office to pursue religious activities - the Court, having analysed judge Pitkevich's dismissal, found that the judiciary, while not part of the ordinary civil service, was nonetheless part of typical public service.
  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94

    CEYLAN c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 29492/05
    In addition, the Court reiterates that the fairness of the proceedings, the procedural guarantees afforded (see, mutatis mutandis, Steel and Morris, cited above, § 95) and the nature and severity of the penalties imposed (see Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-IV; Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, § 69, ECHR 2001-I; Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, §§ 41-42, 27 May 2003; and Lesník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, §§ 63-64, ECHR 2003-IV) are factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10.
  • EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 41205/98

    TAMMER v. ESTONIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 29492/05
    In addition, the Court reiterates that the fairness of the proceedings, the procedural guarantees afforded (see, mutatis mutandis, Steel and Morris, cited above, § 95) and the nature and severity of the penalties imposed (see Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-IV; Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, § 69, ECHR 2001-I; Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, §§ 41-42, 27 May 2003; and Lesník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, §§ 63-64, ECHR 2003-IV) are factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10.
  • EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

    JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 29492/05
    However, even where a statement amounts to a value judgment, the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether there exists sufficient factual basis for that statement, since even a value judgment without any factual basis to support it may be excessive (see De Haes and Gijsels, cited above, § 47, and Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 43, ECHR 2001-II).
  • EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

    NIKULA c. FINLANDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 29492/05
    The Court recalls the "chilling effect" that the fear of sanction has on the exercise of freedom of expression (see, mutatis mutandis, Wille, cited above, § 50; Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 54, ECHR 2002-II; CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 114, ECHR 2004-XI; and Elci and Others v. Turkey, nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, § 714, 13 November 2003).
  • EKMR, 30.06.1997 - 25091/94

    SAHiN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 29492/05
    The Court recalls the "chilling effect" that the fear of sanction has on the exercise of freedom of expression (see, mutatis mutandis, Wille, cited above, § 50; Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 54, ECHR 2002-II; CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 114, ECHR 2004-XI; and Elci and Others v. Turkey, nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, § 714, 13 November 2003).
  • EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

    FEY v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 29492/05
    What is at stake as regards protection of the judiciary's authority is the confidence which the courts in a democratic society must inspire in the accused, as far as criminal proceedings are concerned, and also in the public at large (see, mutatis mutandis, among many other authorities, Fey v. Austria, 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255-A).
  • EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

    PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  • EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

    JERSILD v. DENMARK

  • EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

    MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 28274/08

    Heinisch ./. Deutschland - Verletzung der Meinungsfreiheit bei Kündigung eines

    Der Gerichtshof ruft in diesem Zusammenhang in Erinnerung, dass er in mehreren Fällen, bei denen es um die freie Meinungsäußerung von Beamten oder Angestellten des öffentlichen Dienstes ging, festgestellt hat, dass Artikel 10 für das Arbeitsleben allgemein gilt (siehe z.B. Kudeshkina ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 29492/05, Rdnr. 85, 26. Februar 2009, und V. ./. Deutschland, 26. September 1995, Rdnr. 53, Serie A Band 323).

    Diese abschreckende Wirkung schadet der Gesellschaft als Ganzes und muss daher bei der Beurteilung der Verhältnismäßigkeit und somit auch der Rechtfertigung der Sanktionen, die der Beschwerdeführerin, die, wie der Gerichtshof oben festgestellt hat, zur Öffentlichmachung der in Rede stehenden Angelegenheit berechtigt war, auferlegt wurden, berücksichtigt werden (siehe Kudeshkina ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 29492/05, Rdnr. 99, 26. Februar 2009).

  • EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 35493/13

    SZANYI v. HUNGARY

    Sometimes they are considered to be part of the proportionality test (see, for instance, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 95, ECHR 2005-II; Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, §§ 171 and 181, ECHR 2005-XIII; Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 83, 26 February 2009; Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 155, ECHR 2015; and Cumhuriyet Vakfi and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, § 59, 8 October 2013); sometimes they belong to the requirement of legality "prescribed by law" (see, for instance, the judgments in Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands (no. 38224/03, Chamber judgment of 31 March 2009 and Grand Chamber judgment of 14 September 2010, § 100); and sometimes they are applied without reference to any specific principle or words used in Article 10 (see, for instance, Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no. 39128/2005, § 46, 20 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2017 - 1442/14

    BLAIR ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

    Selon les critères dégagés par sa jurisprudence lorsqu'elle se prononce sur la satisfaction équitable (article 41 de la Convention), la Cour examine une demande de remboursement de frais et dépens en estimant qu'un requérant ne peut obtenir leur remboursement que dans la mesure où se trouvent établis leur réalité, leur nécessité et le caractère raisonnable de leur taux (Dudgeon c. Royaume-Uni (article 50), 24 février 1983, § 20, série A no 59, et Koudechkina c. Russie, no 29492/05, § 109, 26 février 2009).
  • EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 42911/08

    ORLOVSKAYA ISKRA v. RUSSIA

    In the context of election debates, the unhindered exercise of freedom of speech by candidates has particular significance (see Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 87, 26 February 2009).
  • EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 63246/10

    NICHOLAS v. CYPRUS

    As regards the Government's claim that the applicant should have lodged an application for the reopening of the appeal in the light of facts which came to light after the judgment had been given, the Court reiterates its extensive case-law to the effect that an application for a retrial or the reopening of the appeal proceedings or for a similar extraordinary remedy cannot, as a general rule, be taken into account for the purposes of applying Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, amongst many authorities, Korzeniak v. Poland, no.56134/08, § 39, 10 January 2017; Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 90, 26 February 2009; Rizi v. Albania (dec), no. 49201/06, § 44, 8 November 2011; Kolu v. Finland (dec.), no. 56463/10, 3 May 2011; Vainio v. Finland (dec.), no. 62123/09, 3 May 2011; and Tucka v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34586/10, § 15, 18 January 2011; all with further references).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 13936/02

    MANOLE AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

    They submitted that their claims were consistent with the awards made by the Court in "whistle-blower" cases such as Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. 14277/04, ECHR 2008-... and Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, 26 February 2009.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 29492/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2020,43029
EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 29492/05 (https://dejure.org/2020,43029)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01.10.2020 - 29492/05 (https://dejure.org/2020,43029)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01. Oktober 2020 - 29492/05 (https://dejure.org/2020,43029)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2020,43029) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

Verfahrensgang

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 28.02.2008 - 29492/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2008,58401
EGMR, 28.02.2008 - 29492/05 (https://dejure.org/2008,58401)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28.02.2008 - 29492/05 (https://dejure.org/2008,58401)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28. Februar 2008 - 29492/05 (https://dejure.org/2008,58401)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,58401) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

  • EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

    Radikalenerlaß

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2008 - 29492/05
    They referred to the Court's case-law, which stated that "whenever civil servants" right to freedom of expression is in issue the "duties and responsibilities" referred to in Article 10 § 2 assume a special significance, which justifies leaving to the national authorities a certain margin of appreciation in determining whether the impugned interference is proportionate to the above aim" (the Government cited Vogt v. Germany, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323, § 53).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht