Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ROBERTS AND ROBERTS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Zitiert selbst (18)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08

  Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24; and Von Hannover, cited above, § 58).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08

  However, it has also consistently emphasised under Article 10 of the Convention the importance of the right to freedom of expression in a democratic society (see, for example, Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298; Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 27 March 1996, § 39, Reports 1996-II; and Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-XI).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08

  Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (see, inter alia, Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-II; and Flux v. Moldova (no. 6), no. 22824/04, § 24, 29 July 2008).

• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08

  However, it has also consistently emphasised under Article 10 of the Convention the importance of the right to freedom of expression in a democratic society (see, for example, Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298; Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 27 March 1996, § 39, Reports 1996-II; and Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-XI).
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08

  46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04, 21819/04, § 69, 1 March 2010 ).
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 28070/06

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08

  The Court explained its approach to such cases in its judgment in A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009, holding that in order for Article 8 to come into play, the attack on personal honour and reputation must attain a certain level of gravity and in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life (see Mikolajová v. Slovakia, no. 4479/03, § 55, 18 January 2011.
• EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 38432/97

  THOMA v. LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08

  Finally, the Court reiterates that the punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so (see Jersild, cited above, § 35; Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no. 26132/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-IV; and Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 62, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 26132/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08

  Finally, the Court reiterates that the punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so (see Jersild, cited above, § 35; Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no. 26132/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-IV; and Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 62, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 34147/06

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08

  See also Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, §§ 40 and 44, 21 September 2010).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08

  The Court has previously found that a person's reputation, even if that person is criticised in the context of a public debate, forms part of his personal identity and psychological integrity and thus falls within the scope of private life (see Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, § 35, ECHR 2007-XII. See also Chauvy and Others v. France, no. 64915/01, § 70, ECHR 2004-VI; Petrina v. Romania, no. 78060/01, § 36, 14 October 2008; Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 23, 28 April 2009; Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 51, 30 March 2010; and Andreescu v. Romania, no. 19452/02, § 86, 8 June 2010).
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 3843/02
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 76918/01

  VERLAGSGRUPPE NEWS GMBH v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 19452/02

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 22824/04

  FLUX v. MOLDOVA (No. 6)
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 45710/99
• EKMR, 26.02.1997 - 30300/96

  TALMON v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 01.06.1999 - 30500/96

  YASAR v. TURKEY

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 48311/10

  EGMR-Urteil zu Schröder und Gazprom: Pressefreiheit gestärkt

  Oktober 2006; Roberts und Roberts./. Vereinigtes Königreich (Entsch.), Nr. 38681/08, 5. Juli 2011).
• EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  RUSTAVI 2 BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  If, despite the above-mentioned circumstances, the applicants decided not to address Article 85 in their appeal on points of law, that was caused either by their omission or tactical choice, and, in either scenario, they should assume the legal consequences of their approach to present the case before the Supreme Court (compare, mutatis mutandis, Roberts and Roberts v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38681/08, § 37, 5 July 2011).
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 12316/07

  POPOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  In this connection it adds that in order for Article 8 to come into play, the attack on the applicant's personal honour and reputation must attain a certain level of gravity and in a manner causing prejudice to the personal enjoyment of the right to respect for his private life (see, for example, A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009, Mikolajová v. Slovakia, no. 4479/03, § 55, 18 January 2011 and Roberts and Roberts v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 38681/08, §§ 40-41, 5 July 2011).

• EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 20531/06

  ION CÂRSTEA v. ROMANIA

  There can be little doubt that the disputed article and accompanying photographs seriously prejudiced the applicant's honour and reputation and was harmful to his psychological integrity and private life (see, mutatis mutandis, A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009, Mikolajová v. Slovakia, no. 4479/03, § 55, 18 January 2011 and Roberts and Roberts v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 38681/08, §§ 40-41, 5 July 2011).
• EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 46134/09

  RABIYYA MAMMADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Despite the possibility under domestic law to request the recusal of a judge based on the ground that he or she had already heard the case in one of the three levels of ordinary jurisdiction, the applicant's lawyer did not request, at the court hearing, the recusal of judge R.A. (compare Roberts and Roberts v. The United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38681/08, § 37, 5 July 2011, and Iancu and Others v. Romania [Committee], no. 17934/15 and 2 others, § 29, 28 September 2021).
• EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 45543/04

  [FRE]

  There can be little doubt that the disputed article entailed particularly grievous prejudice to the applicants" honour and reputations that was harmful to their psychological integrity and to their private life (see, mutatis mutandis, A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009, Mikolajová v. Slovakia, no. 4479/03, § 55, 18 January 2011, and Roberts and Roberts v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 38681/08, §§ 40-41, 5 July 2011).
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 14832/11

  HOON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  It is established in the Court's case-law that a person's reputation, even if that person is criticised in the context of a public debate, forms part of his or her personal identity and psychological integrity and therefore also falls within the scope of his or her "private life" (See Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, § 35, 15 November 2007, Roberts and Roberts v. the United Kingdom, no. 38681/08, § 40, 5 July 2011 and Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, §§ 83 and 84, 7 February 2012).
• EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 45630/06

  [ENG]

  The Court would not exclude the possibility that in a particular case a close relative may have a moral interest in vindicating a deceased person's right to reputation provided that the attack on reputation attained a certain level of gravity and caused prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life of the close relative (see Armoniene v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, § 29, 25 November 2008; and, mutatis mutandis, Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 23, 28 April 2009; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, §§ 40 and 44, 21 September 2010; and Roberts and Roberts v. United Kingdom (dec.), 5 July 2011, no. 38681/08, § 40).
• EGMR, 12.11.2019 - 20391/16

  MURRAY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Finally, having regard to the general public interest, there are obvious similarities between the present case and that of Roberts and Roberts v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38681/08, 5 July 2011.
• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 31446/09

  TUNCER v. TURKEY

  Accordingly, the Court sees no reason to depart from its considerations in the aforementioned decisions (see also Schimanek v. Austria, (dec.) no. 32307/96, 1 February 2000, Salaman v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43505/98, 15 June 2000 and Roberts and Roberts v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38681/08, 5 July 2011).
• EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 18310/06

  [ENG]