Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OOO IVPRESS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 32686/96

  MARONEK v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 33501/04

  Their claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage was excessive in comparison with the awards made by the Court in similar cases (here they referred to Godlevskiy and Zakharov, both cited above, in which the award amounted to EUR 1, 000, and to Marônek v. Slovakia, no. 32686/96, ECHR 2001-III, in which the Court considered that the finding of a violation would be sufficient just satisfaction).
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  SCHARSACH ET NEWS VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 33501/04

  Although the applicants only cited the affair as an illustration of their thesis that the governor cared more about his private life than he did about his official duties - which could have been taken as a value judgment - the Court reiterates that even a value judgment must be based on sufficient facts in order to constitute a fair comment under Article 10 and that the difference between a value judgment and a statement of fact finally lies in the degree of factual proof which has to be established (see Dyuldin and Kislov, cited above, § 48, and Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 40, ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 33501/04

  The requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is impossible to fulfil and infringes freedom of opinion itself, which is a fundamental part of the right secured by Article 10 (see Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 103; Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), 23 May 1991, § 63, Series A no. 204, and paragraph 77 below).

 
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 37406/03

  DYUNDIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 33501/04

  In the Court's view, the Russian courts did not seem to recognise that the proceedings in the present case involved a conflict between the right to freedom of expression and the protection of reputation (see Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, § 33, 14 October 2008).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 33501/04

  The Court reiterates in this respect that there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on debate on questions of public interest and that very strong reasons are required for justifying such restrictions (see Godlevskiy v. Russia, no. 14888/03, § 41, 23 October 2008, Krasulya, cited above, § 38, and Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 33501/04

  They were found civilly liable for their publication, therefore the impugned interference must be seen in the context of the essential role of the press in ensuring the proper functioning of a democratic society (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 59, ECHR 1999-IV, and Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 41, Series A no. 103).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 510/04

  TØNSBERGS BLAD AS AND HAUKOM v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 33501/04

  Although the journalists must be afforded some degree of exaggeration or even provocation, especially when it comes to critical reporting about politicians or public figures, the Court accepts the findings of the Russian courts in this connection and considers that the frivolous and unverified statements about Mr T. private life must be taken to have gone beyond the limits of responsible journalism (compare Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, § 92, 1 March 2007).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 33501/04

  The test of necessity requires the Court to determine whether the interference 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 were relevant and sufficient (see, among many other authorities, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 33501/04

  It has been the Court's constant position that the limits of permissible criticism are wider with regard to a government official in the course of performance of his or her functions than in relation to a private citizen (see Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia, no. 27570/03, § 47, 21 December 2010, Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 45, 31 July 2007, and, as a classic authority, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 46, Series A no. 236).
• EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 12365/03

  KRASULYA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 33501/04

  In examining the particular circumstances of the case, the Court will take the following elements into account: the position of the applicants, the position of the persons against whom their criticism was directed, the subject matter of the publications, characterisation of the contested statement by the domestic courts, the wording used by the applicants, and the penalty imposed (see Krasulya v. Russia, no. 12365/03, § 35, 22 February 2007, with further references).
• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 14888/03

  GODLEVSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 62364/10

  IVANOV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle en outre qu'elle a déjà conclu à la violation de l'article 10 de la Convention dans de nombreuses affaires concernant la Russie, au motif que les juridictions nationales avaient failli à appliquer au niveau interne les principes pertinents (voir, parmi d'autres, OOO Ivpress et autres c. Russie, nos 33501/04 et 3 autres, §§ 67-80, 22 janvier 2013, Terentyev c. Russie, no 25147/09, §§ 18-25, 26 janvier 2017, OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad c. Russie, no 39748/05, §§ 32-47, 25 avril 2017, Cheltsova c. Russie, no 44294/06, §§ 69-101, 13 juin 2017, Skudayeva c. Russie, no 24014/07, §§ 29-40, 5 mars 2019, et Novaya Gazeta et Milashina c. Russie [comité], no 4097/06, §§ 50-58, 2 juillet 2019).
• EGMR, 23.09.2021 - 26826/16

  RINGIER AXEL SPRINGER SLOVAKIA, A.S. v. SLOVAKIA (No. 4)

  33501/04 and 3 others, § 79, 22 January 2013).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 9406/05

  KUNITSYNA v. RUSSIA

  33501/04, 38608/04, 35258/05 and 35618/05, § 72, 22 January 2013).
• EGMR - 32058/13 (anhängig)

  NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA

  Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? Did the domestic courts applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10? (see, among others, Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 45, 4 April 2013, and OOO Ivpress and Others v. Russia, nos. 33501/04, 38608/04, 35258/05 and 35618/05, §§ 71, 74 et passim, 22 January 2013)?.
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 81060/12

  FATULLAYEV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle également que dans de nombreuses affaires dirigées contre la Russie elle a déjà conclu à la violation de l'article 10 de la Convention au motif que les juridictions nationales n'avaient pas appliqué lesdits principes au niveau interne (voir, parmi d'autres, OOO Ivpress et autres c. Russie, nos 33501/04 et 3 autres, §§ 67-80, 22 janvier 2013, Terentyev c. Russie, no 25147/09, §§ 18-25, 26 janvier 2017, OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad c. Russie, no 39748/05, §§ 32-47, 25 avril 2017, Cheltsova c. Russie, no 44294/06, §§ 69-101, 13 juin 2017, Skudayeva c. Russie, no 24014/07, §§ 29-40, 5 mars 2019, et Novaya Gazeta et Milashina c. Russie [comité], no 4097/06, §§ 50-58, 2 juillet 2019).