Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KANIA AND KITTEL v. POLAND

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  No violation of Art. 10 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 35105/04

  They referred to the judgments given in the cases of Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, and Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313.

  Although the press must not overstep certain bounds, in particular in respect of the reputation and rights of others and the need to prevent the disclosure of confidential information, its duty is nevertheless to impart information and ideas on all matters of public interest (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298, and De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, 24 February 1997, § 37, Reports of Judgments and decisions 1997-I).

• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 35105/04

  It therefore considers that the requirement of proportionality between damages for defamation and the injury suffered which was set out in Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom (13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, § 49) has been respected.
• EGMR, 22.06.2010 - 41029/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 35105/04

  The Court further observes that the applicants were found only to be civilly liable: no criminal proceedings for a public indictment were instituted or even envisaged against them (compare and contrast Kurlowicz v. Poland, no. 41029/06, § 54, 22 June 2010, and Dlugolecki v. Poland, no. 23806/03, § 47, 24 February 2009).

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 35105/04

  They referred to the Court's judgment in the case of Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 35105/04

  The test of "necessity in a democratic society" requires the Court to determine whether the "interference" complained of corresponded to a "pressing social need", whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify it are relevant and sufficient (see, among many other authorities, Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 62, Series A no. 30; and Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, § 35, 27 May 2003).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 35105/04

  Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of "public watchdog" in imparting information of serious public concern (see, among other authorities, Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216, and Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 34, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 35105/04

  In doing so, 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 relied on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see, among many other authorities, Hertel v. Switzerland, 25 August 1998, § 46, Reports 1998-VI; Pedersen and Baadsgaard, cited above, §§ 68-71; Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 87, ECHR 2005-II; and Mamère v. France, no. 12697/03, § 19, ECHR 2006-...; ).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 35105/04

  They referred to the judgments given in the cases of Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, and Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313.
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 35105/04

  21279/02 and 36448/02, § 67, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 35105/04

  By reason of these "duties and responsibilities", 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, for example, Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 27 March 1996, § 39, Reports 1996-II,; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 78, ECHR 2004-XI; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  Feldek ./. Slowakei
• EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 43425/98

  Meinungsfreiheit (konstitutive Bedeutung in der Demokratie; Eingriff; …

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 35030/13

  Petra Reski

  Der Gerichtshof ist allerdings der Ansicht, dass zwischen hinnehmbarer Übertreibung oder Provokation bzw. einer leicht überzogenen Äußerung und der Verzerrung von Fakten, die den Journalisten zum Zeitpunkt der Veröffentlichung bekannt waren, ein Unterschied besteht (siehe Kania und Kittel./. Polen, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 35105/04, Rdnr. 47, 21. Juni 2011).
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 34447/05

  [ENG]

  The phrase at issue remains within the acceptable limits being closely connected with factual information provided by the applicant in his article (compare and contrast, Kania and Kittel v. Poland, no. 35105/04, § 47, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 44436/13

  KANIA v. POLAND

  The courts further examined whether the research done by the applicant before the publication of her allegations had been in good faith and complied with the ordinary journalistic obligation to verify the facts from reliable sources (Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, §§ 64-65, 14 February 2008, and Kania and Kittel v. Poland, no. 35105/04, §§ 45-46, 21 June 2011).

• EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 48723/07

  STANKIEWICZ AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  The research done by the applicants before the publication of their allegations was in good faith and complied with the ordinary journalistic obligation to verify the facts from reliable sources (compare and contrast, Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, §§ 64-65, 14 February 2008; Kania and Kittel v. Poland, no. 35105/04, §§ 45-46, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 46712/06

  [ENG]

  In the Court's view, in such cases a fair balance between the privileged position of the press, exercising its freedom of expression, and a politician's right to protect his or her reputation is called for (see Sanocki v. Poland, no. 28949/03, §§ 61-62, 17 July 2007; Kania and Kittel v. Poland, no. 35105/04, § 43, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 6875/05

  SAYGILI AND KARATAS v. TURKEY

  Firstly, there is no indication in the national courts' judgments whether they considered examining the impugned article from the standpoint of Article 10 of the Convention (compare and contrast Kania and Kittel v. Poland, no. 35105/04, § 49, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 59545/10

  BLAJA NEWS SP. Z O.O. v. POLAND

  21279/02 and 36448/02, § 67, ECHR 2007-IV; and Kania and Kittel v. Poland, no. 35105/04, § 36, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 49132/11

  KANIA v. POLAND

  La Cour estime, cependant, qu'il y a une différence entre exagération, provocation ou déclaration brutale, d'une part, et déformation délibérée des faits dont le journaliste avait connaissance au moment de la publication (Kania et Kittel c. Pologne, no 35105/04, § 47, 21 juin 2011).
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 619/12

  KONIUSZEWSKI v. POLAND

  The title remains within the acceptable limits as it is closely connected with the factual information provided by the applicant in his article (compare and contrast Kania and Kittel v. Poland, no. 35105/04, § 47, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23665/09

  [ENG]

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to freedom of expression (see, for example, Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, ECHR 1999-I; Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, 9 January 2007; Frankowicz v. Poland, no. 53025/99, 16 December 2008; Wojtas-Kaleta v. Poland, no. 20436/02, 16 July 2009; Kania and Kittel v. Poland, no. 35105/04, 21 June 2011; Wizerkaniuk v. Poland, no. 18990/05, 5 July 2011).