Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 29751/09   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2017,21240
EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 29751/09 (https://dejure.org/2017,21240)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27.06.2017 - 29751/09 (https://dejure.org/2017,21240)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27. Juni 2017 - 29751/09 (https://dejure.org/2017,21240)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,21240) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

  • EGMR, 29.02.2000 - 39293/98

    FUENTES BOBO c. ESPAGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 29751/09
    The show was broadcast live on television, so the applicant had but a limited possibility of reformulating, refining or retracting any statements before they were made public (compare Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, § 49, ECHR 2003-XI ; and Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, no. 39293/98, § 46, 29 February 2000).
  • EGMR, 22.12.2005 - 54968/00

    PATUREL c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 29751/09
    In order to distinguish between a factual allegation and a value judgment it is necessary to take account of the circumstances of the case and the general tone of the remarks (see Brasilier v. France, no. 71343/01, § 37, 11 April 2006), bearing in mind that assertions about matters of public interest may, on that basis, constitute value judgments rather than statements of fact (see Paturel v. France, no. 54968/00, § 37, 22 December 2005).
  • EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

    TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 29751/09
    Lastly, as to the sentence imposed, the Court reiterates that, under the Convention, an award of damages for defamation must bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the injury to reputation suffered (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 49, Series A no. 316-B and Tavares de Almeida Fernandes and Almeida Fernandes, cited above, § 77).
  • EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

    FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 29751/09
    While the existence of facts can be demonstrated, the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof (see, among many other authorities, Morice, cited above, § 126, and Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 75, ECHR 2001-VIII).
  • EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 35071/97

    GUNDUZ v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 29751/09
    The show was broadcast live on television, so the applicant had but a limited possibility of reformulating, refining or retracting any statements before they were made public (compare Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, § 49, ECHR 2003-XI ; and Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, no. 39293/98, § 46, 29 February 2000).
  • EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 11319/03

    SIC - SOCIEDADE INDEPENDENTE DE COMUNICACAO, S.A. c. PORTUGAL

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 29751/09
    The Court reiterates in this connection that the punishment of a journalist for having worded her opinions in a specific manner would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so (see Colaço Mestre and SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A. v. Portugal, nos. 11182/03 and 11319/03, § 31, 26 April 2007, and also, mutatis mutandis, Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 35, Series A no. 298; Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 62, ECHR 2001-III and Lionarakis v. Greece, no. 1131/05, § 51, 5 July 2007).
  • EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

    LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 29751/09
    The Court reiterates that, as regards the level of protection, there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on debate on matters of public interest (see Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 125, ECHR 2015, with further references); the limits of acceptable criticism are therefore wider with regard to a civil servant or a politician acting in his public capacity than in relation to a private individual (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 46, ECHR 2007-IV).
  • EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

    PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 29751/09
    The Court reiterates that journalistic freedom covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration or even provocation (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 38, Series A no. 313).
  • EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

    Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 29751/09
    40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 101-13, ECHR 2012 and Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés, cited above, § 93).
  • EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 1131/05

    LIONARAKIS c. GRECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 29751/09
    The Court reiterates in this connection that the punishment of a journalist for having worded her opinions in a specific manner would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so (see Colaço Mestre and SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A. v. Portugal, nos. 11182/03 and 11319/03, § 31, 26 April 2007, and also, mutatis mutandis, Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 35, Series A no. 298; Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 62, ECHR 2001-III and Lionarakis v. Greece, no. 1131/05, § 51, 5 July 2007).
  • EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

    JERSILD v. DENMARK

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 08.02.2024 - C-633/22

    Real Madrid Club de Fútbol - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle

    In einigen Urteilen verwendet der EGMR den Ausdruck ",chilling", dissuasive effect", vgl. EGMR, 27. Juni 2017, Ghiulfer Predescu/Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2017:0627JUD002975109, § 61), und EGMR, 8. Januar 2019, Prunea/Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2019:0108JUD004788111, § 38), ins Deutsche schlicht als "abschreckende Wirkung" oder "Einschüchterungseffekt" übersetzt.

    125 Vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 27. Juni 2017, Ghiulfer Predescu/Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2017:0627JUD002975109, § 61).

  • EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 36889/18

    CAMELIA BOGDAN c. ROUMANIE

    Ensuite, la Cour rappelle avoir été déjà saisie de plusieurs affaires roumaines, sur le terrain des articles 8 ou 10 de la Convention, dans lesquelles les intéressés avaient obtenu réparation de leurs préjudices causés par voie de presse, par le biais de l'action civile en responsabilité délictuelle (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Aurelian Oprea c. Roumanie, no 12138/08, §§ 24-28, 19 janvier 2016 ; Rusu c. Roumanie, no 25721/04, §§ 12-13, 8 mars 2016 ; Ghiulfer Predescu c. Roumanie, no 29751/09, §§ 9-23, 27 juin 2017 ; et Prunea c. Roumanie, no 47881/11, §§ 7-16, 8 janvier 2019).
  • EGMR, 28.07.2020 - 53028/14

    MONICA MACOVEI v. ROMANIA

    23145/93 and 25091/94, § 714, 13 November 2003), and even though the applicant has not shown whether or not she would struggle to pay the amounts required of her in order to comply with the last-instance court's judgment, the Court is of the view that, under the circumstances, the sanction imposed was capable of having a dissuasive effect on the exercise of her right to freedom of expression (see, for instance, Lombardo and Others, cited above, § 61; and Ghiulfer Predescu v. Romania, no. 29751/09, § 61, 27 June 2017).
  • EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 26922/14

    Spanien verurteilt: Ab wann eine Polizeimaßnahme "Folter" heißen darf

    Indeed, the Court considers that there is nothing in the case to suggest that the applicant's allegations were made otherwise than in good faith and in pursuit of the legitimate aim of debating a matter of public interest (see, mutatis mutandis, Ghiulfer Predescu v. Romania, no. 29751/09, § 59, 27 June 2017, and Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 84, ECHR 2001-VIII).
  • EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 42182/11

    TOLMACHEV v. RUSSIA

    In some cases, the Court considered the amount to be so high in absolute terms or in comparison with awards in other defamation cases as to trigger a heightened scrutiny of its proportionality (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky, cited above, § 49 in fine; Pakdemirli v. Turkey, no. 35839/97, § 59, 22 February 2005; I Avgi Publishing and Press Agency S.A. and Karis v. Greece, no. 15909/06, § 35, 5 June 2008; Público-Comunicação Social, S.A. and Others v. Portugal, no. 39324/07, § 55, 7 December 2010; Gouveia Gomes Fernandes and Freitas e Costa v. Portugal, no. 1529/08, § 54, 29 March 2011; Tavares de Almeida Fernandes and Almeida Fernandes v. Portugal, no. 31566/13, § 77, 17 January 2017; and Ghiulfer Predescu v. Romania, no. 29751/09, § 60, 27 June 2017).
  • EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 53982/11

    TEGULUM S.A. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

    Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine either the admissibility or the merits of the complaint under Article 6 (see Kaos GL v. Turkey, no. 4982/07, § 65, 22 November 2016; and Ghiulfer Predescu v. Romania, no. 29751/09, § 67, 27 June 2017).
  • EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 29497/13

    STAN c. ROUMANIE

    Le droit interne pertinent 9. Les dispositions pertinentes en l'espèce du code civil tel qu'en vigueur à l'époque des faits sont décrites dans Ghiulfer Predescu c. Roumanie (no 29751/09, § 24, 27 juin 2017).
  • EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 68373/14

    RUSU v. ROMANIA

    Given the chilling effect that a fear of sanction may have on the exercise of freedom of expression (see Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, § 50, ECHR 1999-VII, and Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 54, ECHR 2002-II), and that the applicant proved that the penalty imposed on her exceeded her monthly income, the Court is of the view that this penalty was capable of having a dissuasive effect on the exercise of her right to freedom of expression (see Lombardo and Others v. Malta, no. 7333/06, § 61, 24 April 2007, and Ghiulfer Predescu v. Romania, no. 29751/09, § 61, 27 June 2017).
  • EGMR, 05.07.2022 - 21947/16

    LILIAN ERHAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

    However, having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 6 of the Convention, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine either the admissibility or the merits of the complaints under Article 8 (see Kaos-GL v. Turkey, 450 no. 4982/07, § 65, 22 November 2016; Ghiulfer Predescu v. Romania, 451 no. 29751/09, § 67, 27 June 2017; Political Party "Patria" and Others v. the Republic of Moldova, nos. 5113/15 and 14 others, § 41, 4 August 2020).
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