Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PALADE v. ROMANIA

  Art. 2, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.08.2010 - 37441/05

  Lastly, the Court reiterates that journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 56, ECHR 2007-XI).
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 28070/06

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.08.2010 - 37441/05

  The conclusion reached above, under Article 6 § 1, does not prevent the Court from taking into account the interests sought to be protected by Article 6 in the balancing exercise carried out below under Article 8, without, nevertheless substituting its own assessment for that of the domestic courts (see Mamère v. France, no. 12697/03, § 22, ECHR 2006-XIII; and A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 47, 9 April 2009).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.08.2010 - 37441/05

  The Court makes reference to the principles it has established in its recent case-law concerning the protection afforded by Article 8 to the right to a good reputation (see Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, §§ 17-26, 28 April 2009; Petrina v. Romania, no. 78060/01, §§ 27-29 and 34-36, 14 October 2008; and A., cited above, §§ 63-65) and to the Recommendation Rec(2003)13 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member states on the provision of information through the media in relation to criminal proceedings (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2003 at the 848th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies).
• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 46311/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.08.2010 - 37441/05

  As for the lack of legal aid, the Court notes that the case in itself was not complicated enough, either in law or on the facts, to require legal assistance (see, mutatis mutandis, McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 78060/01

  PETRINA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.08.2010 - 37441/05

  The Court makes reference to the principles it has established in its recent case-law concerning the protection afforded by Article 8 to the right to a good reputation (see Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, §§ 17-26, 28 April 2009; Petrina v. Romania, no. 78060/01, §§ 27-29 and 34-36, 14 October 2008; and A., cited above, §§ 63-65) and to the Recommendation Rec(2003)13 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member states on the provision of information through the media in relation to criminal proceedings (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2003 at the 848th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.11.2013 - 16882/03

  [ENG]

  The question of whether the damage to the reputation of an applicant's family can be considered an interference with the right to respect for the applicant's private life was raised, but not finally decided, in Palade v. Romania ((dec.), no. 37441/05, § 25, 31 August 2012).
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 44332/16

  DANES c. ROUMANIE et 2 autres affaires

  Il renvoie à la jurisprudence de la Cour (notamment aux affaires Palade c. Roumanie (déc.), no 37441/05, 31 août 2010 ; Timciuc c. Roumanie (déc.), no 28999/03, 12 octobre 2010 ; et Stroea c. Roumanie [Comité], no 76969/11, 22 octobre 2019) qui accorderait la priorité à la liberté d'expression lors de sa mise en balance avec le droit au respect de la vie privée, et estime que l'État défendeur n'a pas manqué à son obligation positive de faire respecter le droit des requérants à leur vie privée.