Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TAVARES DE ALMEIDA FERNANDES AND ALMEIDA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL

  Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  TAVARES DE ALMEIDA FERNANDES AND ALMEIDA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 31566/13

  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 Gouveia Gomes Fernandes and Freitas e Costa, cited above, § 54; Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 96, ECHR 2005-II; and Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 49, Series A no. 316-B).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 31566/13

  However, where a statement amounts to a value judgment, the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether there exists a sufficient "factual basis" for the impugned statement: if there does not, that value judgment may prove excessive (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 55, ECHR 2007-IV; Brasilier v. France, no. 71343/01, § 36, 11 April 2006; Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 2), 1 July 1997, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV).
• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 346/04

  MUSTAFA ERDOGAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 31566/13

  It may therefore prove necessary to protect that confidence against destructive attacks which are essentially unfounded, especially in view of the fact that judges who have been criticised are subject to a duty of discretion that precludes them from replying (see Mustafa Erdogan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 346/04 and 39779/04, § 42, 27 May 2014).

 
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 31566/13

  The Court also reiterates that journalistic freedom also 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, 17.01.2017 - 31566/13

  40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 101-113, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 20893/03

  JULY AND SARL LIBERATION v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 31566/13

  It is well established in the Court's case-law that members of the judiciary acting in an official capacity may be subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than ordinary citizens (see July and SARL Libération v. France, no. 20893/03, § 74, ECHR 2008 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 39954/08

  Axel Springer AG in Art. 10 EMRK (Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung) verletzt durch …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 31566/13

  In two fairly recent cases, the Court defined its own role in balancing these two conflicting interests and went on to identify a number of relevant criteria to be considered when the right to freedom of expression is being balanced against the right to respect for private life (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, §§ 82-95, 7 February 2012, and Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 31566/13

  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, 19.04.2011 - 3316/04

  BOZHKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 31566/13

  The Court further reiterates that 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 (see Bozhkov v. Bulgaria, no. 3316/04, § 46, 19 April 2011).
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  KASABOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 31566/13

  In situations where on the one hand a statement of fact is made and insufficient evidence is adduced to prove it, and on the other hand the journalist is discussing an issue of genuine public interest, verifying whether the journalist has acted professionally and in good faith becomes paramount (see Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, § 63, 19 April 2011, and Flux v. Moldova (no. 7), no. 25367/05, § 41, 24 November 2009).
• EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 25367/05

  FLUX v. MOLDOVA (No. 7)

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

  Real Madrid Club de Fútbol - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle …

  115 EGMR, 29. Mai 2017, Tavares de Almeida Fernandes und Almeida Fernandes/Portugal (CE:ECHR:2017:0117JUD003156613, § 77).
• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 47238/19

  ALMEIDA ARROJA v. PORTUGAL

  In addition, 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 Tavares de Almeida Fernandes and Almeida Fernandes v. Portugal, no. 31566/13, § 77, 17 January 2017, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 78873/13

  FREITAS RANGEL v. PORTUGAL

  The Court considers that an applicant is, in principle, entitled to recover any sums that he or she has paid in fines and costs, by reason of their direct link with the national court judgments which the Court found to be in breach of his or her right to freedom of expression (see Tavares de Almeida Fernandes and Almeida Fernandes v. Portugal, no. 31566/13, § 86, 17 January 2017).

 
• 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, 15.11.2022 - 24919/20

  MARCINKEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  The Court, relying on its relevant case-law, considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (see Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, § 295, ECHR 2015 (extracts); Tavares de Almeida Fernandes and Almeida Fernandes v. Portugal, no. 31566/13, § 88, 17 January 2017; and Ottan v. France, no. 41841/12, § 79, 19 April 2018).
• EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 31208/13

  MORAIS c. PORTUGAL

  Pour étayer sa thèse quant à l'influence exercée par N.N. sur les tribunaux, le requérant ajoute enfin que ce dernier a réussi à obtenir une indemnisation de 60 000 euros à l'issue d'une procédure de diffamation qu'il avait engagée contre un journaliste d'un grand quotidien portugais, affaire qui a donné lieu à l'arrêt Tavares de Almeida Fernandes et Almeida Fernandes c. Portugal (no 31566/13, 17 janvier 2017) par lequel la Cour a condamné l'État portugais pour violation de la liberté d'expression du journaliste mis en cause.