Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DE CARVALHO MARQUES AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DE CARVALHO MARQUES v. PORTUGAL and 5 other applications

  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• SpuRt 2026, 508

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (18)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2026 - 29703/19

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 105, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2026 - 29703/19

  Rn. 112 Furthermore, in its judgments in Lingens v. Austria (8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 103) and Oberschlick v. Austria (23 May 1991, § 63, Series A no. 204), the Court drew a distinction between statements of fact and value judgments.
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2026 - 29703/19

  Rn. 106 However, the Court is not persuaded by the Government's argument that the prevention of public disorder, also a legitimate aim under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention, was at stake in the present case (see paragraph 98 above) taking into account that there was only a brief reference to conduct inciting violence, conflict and indiscipline in the judgment of the Sports Arbitration Court of 30 September 2019 in relation to application no. 47902/20 (see paragraph 65 above) and the judgment of the CACS of 9 September 2021 in relation to the second applicant in application no. 3708/22 (see paragraph 83 above, compare Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, § 153, ECHR 2015 (extracts); and contrast Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 39, Series A no. 236).

• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2026 - 29703/19

  However, for practical reasons, Mr Jorge Nuno Lima Pinto da Costa will continue to be referred as "the second applicant" in the present judgment (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 28470/12

  NIT S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2026 - 29703/19

  The general principles concerning the question of whether an interference with the exercise of freedom of expression is "necessary in a democratic society" are well established in the Court's case-law and have been summarised in NIT S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova ([GC], no. 28470/12, § 177, 5 April 2022).
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 20893/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2026 - 29703/19

  Consequently, the Court finds that when referees are acting in this capacity, they may be subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than ordinary citizens (see, mutatis mutandis, Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999-I; July and SARL Libération v. France, no. 20893/03, § 74, ECHR 2008 (extracts); and Morice, cited above, § 131) and may thus be expected to endure harsh criticism, even if it is hostile in tone.
• KAG Aachen, 19.06.2006 - 11/06

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2026 - 29703/19

  11/06/2019.
• EGMR, 25.03.2021 - 1864/18

  MATALAS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2026 - 29703/19

  In such instances, the Court may be required to verify whether the domestic authorities struck a fair balance when protecting the two values guaranteed by the Convention - namely, on the one hand, freedom of expression, as protected by Article 10, and, on the other, the right to respect for private life, as enshrined in Article 8 (see Matalas v. Greece, no. 1864/18, § 40, 25 March 2021).
• EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 22953/16

  STANCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2026 - 29703/19

  Accordingly, it accepts that the accusations made attained the requisite level of seriousness to cause prejudice to the enjoyment by the referees concerned and the Refereeing Council of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention (compare, mutatis mutandis, Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no. 17224/11, § 79, 27 June 2017; Stancu and Others v. Romania, no. 22953/16, § 121, 18 October 2022; and Sytnyk v. Ukraine, no. 16497/20, §§ 108-109, 24 April 2025).
• EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 19362/18

  MESIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2026 - 29703/19

  These criteria are not exhaustive and have been transposed and adapted by the Court in the light of the particular circumstances of the case (see, for example, Mesić v. Croatia, no. 19362/18, § 86, 5 May 2022).
• EGMR, 27.07.2021 - 29856/13

  SIC - SOCIEDADE INDEPENDENTE DE COMUNICAÇÃO v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 48909/14

  DOGAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 70465/12

  PAIS PIRES DE LIMA c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 78873/13

  FREITAS RANGEL v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 14134/07

  ARMELLINI AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 54540/16

  TOKMAK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 48924/16

  NAKI ET AMED SPORTIF FAALIYETLER KULÜBÜ DERNEGI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 24.04.2025 - 16497/20

  SYTNYK v. UKRAINE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen