Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NENKOVA-LALOVA v. BULGARIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Besprechungen u.ä.

• lehofer.at (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  Entlassung einer Rundfunkmitarbeiterin wegen Missachtung redaktioneller Anweisungen war keine Verletzung des Art 10 EMRK

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 13936/02

  MANOLE ET AUTRES c. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 35745/05

  The Court starts by observing that the applicant's status as an employee of the BNR did not deprive her of the protection of Article 10 of the Convention (see Manole and Others v. Moldova, no. 13936/02, § 103, 17 September 2009).

  The majority accepts that the applicant, as a journalist employed by the BNR, a public broadcaster, enjoys the protection of Article 10 of the Convention (see the reference in paragraph 50 of the judgment to Manole and Others v. Moldova, no. 13936/02, § 103, 17 September 2009).

• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 28396/95

  Nichtberufung eines liechtensteiner Richters in das Amt des Gerichtspräsidenten …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 35745/05

  To answer that question, the Court needs to determine the scope of the measure by putting it in the context of the facts of the case and of the relevant legislation (see Glasenapp v. Germany, 28 August 1986, § 50, Series A no. 104; Kosiek v. Germany, 28 August 1986, § 36, Series A no. 105; Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, § 43, ECHR 1999-VII; Harabin v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62584/00, 29 June 2004; and Otto v. Germany (dec.), no. 27574/02, 24 November 2005).

  However, it cannot be overlooked that it was prompted by concrete and deliberate actions on the part of the applicant - who in effect allowed Ms V.N. to host her show in her stead, letting her speak for one hundred and thirteen minutes out of one hundred and twenty (see paragraphs 13-15 above) - which showed that her employer could not trust her to perform her duties in good faith (contrast Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 60, Series A no. 323, and Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, § 69, ECHR 1999-VII).

• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 35745/05

  Secondly, employers generally enjoy a broad discretion in determining the sanction that is best adapted to breaches of employment discipline (see, mutatis mutandis, Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06, § 75, ECHR 2011-...).

  The majority has relied on the case of Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain ([GC], nos. 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06, ECHR 2011-...) for finding the measure proportionate (see paragraph 60 of the judgment).

 
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 35745/05

  However, it cannot be overlooked that it was prompted by concrete and deliberate actions on the part of the applicant - who in effect allowed Ms V.N. to host her show in her stead, letting her speak for one hundred and thirteen minutes out of one hundred and twenty (see paragraphs 13-15 above) - which showed that her employer could not trust her to perform her duties in good faith (contrast Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 60, Series A no. 323, and Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, § 69, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 54934/00

  Menschenrechte: Verletzung der Privatsphäre und des Briefgeheimnisses durch das …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 35745/05

  Although the Court can and should exercise a certain power of review in this matter, since failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of Article 10 of the Convention, the scope of its task is subject to limits inherent in the subsidiary nature of the Convention, and it cannot question the way in which the domestic courts have interpreted and applied national law except in cases of flagrant non-observance or arbitrariness (see, mutatis mutandis, Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, § 90, ECHR 2006-XI, and Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 46, 8 March 2011).
• EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09

  CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 35745/05

  The Court will also have regard to the general principles concerning pluralism in the audiovisual media, which were recently set out in paragraphs 95-102 of its judgment in the case of Manole and Others (cited above) and paragraphs 129-34 of its judgment in the case of Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and di Stefano v. Italy ([GC], no. 38433/09, ECHR 2012-...).
• EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 15450/89

  CASADO COCA v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 35745/05

  The Court observes in this connection that it is primarily for the national courts to interpret and apply domestic law (see, among many other authorities, Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 58, Series A no. 239, and Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 43, Series A no. 285-A).
• EGMR, 28.08.1986 - 9228/80

  GLASENAPP c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 35745/05

  To answer that question, the Court needs to determine the scope of the measure by putting it in the context of the facts of the case and of the relevant legislation (see Glasenapp v. Germany, 28 August 1986, § 50, Series A no. 104; Kosiek v. Germany, 28 August 1986, § 36, Series A no. 105; Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, § 43, ECHR 1999-VII; Harabin v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62584/00, 29 June 2004; and Otto v. Germany (dec.), no. 27574/02, 24 November 2005).
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 35745/05

  The Court observes in this connection that it is primarily for the national courts to interpret and apply domestic law (see, among many other authorities, Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 58, Series A no. 239, and Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 43, Series A no. 285-A).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 35745/05

  A judgment which is not final but subject to review by two superior courts cannot be regarded as giving rise to a debt that is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, §§ 60-61, Series A no. 301-B).
• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 45291/06

  PREVITI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 28.08.1986 - 9704/82

  KOSIEK c. ALLEMAGNE
• EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 37235/97

  SOFRI et AUTRES contre l'ITALIE
• EGMR, 24.11.2005 - 27574/02

  OTTO v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  ALEKSEY PETROV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 36822/02

  BRACCI c. ITALIE

• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 79040/12

  RUBINS v. LATVIA

  Having regard to the central issue in the dispute the Court accepts that Article 10 is applicable to the facts of the case (compare and contrast Nenkova-Lalova v. Bulgaria, no. 35745/05, § 53, 11 December 2012; see also and Lombardi Vallauri, cited above, § 30).

  At the same time employees were expected to act in good faith and had a duty of loyalty and discretion towards their employers (see Heinisch v. Germany, no. 28274/08, § 64, ECHR 2011 (extracts)), and national authorities could be justified in insisting that employment relations should be based on mutual trust (see Nenkova-Lalova v. Bulgaria, no. 35745/05, § 60, 11 December 2012).

• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 40072/13

  MIROSLAVA TODOROVA c. BULGARIE

  À cette fin, elle tient compte des raisons invoquées par les autorités pour justifier les mesures en cause (voir, par exemple, Harabin, décision précitée, Kövesi c. Roumanie, no 3594/19, §§ 184-187, 5 mai 2020, et Goryaynova c. Ukraine, no 41752/09, § 54, 8 octobre 2020) ainsi que, le cas échéant, des arguments présentés dans le cadre des procédures de recours subséquentes (Koudechkina, précité, § 79, Köseoglu, décision précitée, § 25, et, mutatis mutandis, Nenkova-Lalova c. Bulgarie, no 35745/05, § 51, 11 décembre 2012).
• EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 39650/18

  ZUREK v. POLAND

  To that end the Court takes account of the reasons relied upon by the authorities to justify the measures in question (see, for example, Harabin (dec.), 2004, cited above; Kövesi v. Romania, no. 3594/19, §§ 184-187, 5 May 2020; and Goryaynova v. Ukraine, no. 41752/09, § 54, 8 October 2020) together with, if appropriate, any arguments submitted in the context of subsequent appeal proceedings (see Kudeshkina, cited above, § 79; Köseoglu, cited above, § 25; and, mutatis mutandis, Nenkova-Lalova v. Bulgaria, no. 35745/05, § 51, 11 December 2012).
• EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 11002/07

  SKWIRUT c. POLOGNE

  Cela étant, bien que le requérant n'ait pas invoqué l'article 10 de la Convention dans la procédure devant les juridictions nationales, elle considère que cette disposition est applicable en l'espèce (Nenkova-Lelova c. Bulgarie, no 35745/05, § 53, 11 décembre 2012).