Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SEKS v. CROATIA

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-b) No significant disadvantage;No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ? EKS v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Zitiert selbst (22)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 39325/20

  National security being an evolving and context-dependent concept, the States must be afforded a wide margin of appreciation in assessing what poses a national security risk in their countries at a particular time (see, mutatis mutandis, Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, § 88, 26 July 2011, and Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 59, Series A no. 116).
• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 39325/20

  The general principles concerning the question whether an interference with freedom of expression is "necessary in a democratic society" are well established in the Court's case-law and have been summarised as follows (see, among many other authorities, Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 100, ECHR 2013, and Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 131, ECHR 2015):.
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTER OF LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 39325/20

  However, having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its above finding under Article 10 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present applications and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaint (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references).

• EGMR, 15.04.2012 - 29520/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 39325/20

  The Court has recognised that it was not well-equipped to challenge the national authorities' judgment concerning the existence of national security considerations (see, in the context of Article 38 of the Convention, Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, § 213, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 29157/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 39325/20

  National security being an evolving and context-dependent concept, the States must be afforded a wide margin of appreciation in assessing what poses a national security risk in their countries at a particular time (see, mutatis mutandis, Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, § 88, 26 July 2011, and Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 59, Series A no. 116).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 42086/05

  LIU v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 39325/20

  If there was no possibility of challenging effectively the executive's assertion that national security was at stake, the State authorities would be able to encroach arbitrarily on rights protected by the Convention (see Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, §§ 85-87, 6 December 2007, and Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, §§ 123-24, 20 June 2002).
• EGMR, 16.01.2020 - 31295/11

  YAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 39325/20

  However, even when national security is at stake, the concepts of lawfulness and the rule of law in a democratic society require that measures affecting fundamental human rights must be subject to some form of adversarial proceedings before an independent body competent to review the reasons for the decision (ibid., see also Yam v. the United Kingdom, no. 31295/11, § 56, 16 January 2020).
• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 23897/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 39325/20

  The Court has previously criticised the national authorities for their failure to conduct a thorough proportionality analysis in refusing to allow an individual access to classified documents (see Yuriy Chumak v. Ukraine, no. 23897/10, § 47, 18 March 2021).
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

  MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 39325/20

  However, such a right or obligation may arise where access to the information is instrumental for the individual's exercise of his or her right to freedom of expression, in particular, "the freedom to receive and impart information", and where its denial constitutes an interference with that right (see Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 156, 8 November 2016).
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  Denisov v. Ukraine

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 39325/20

  At the same time, the Court has held that the question of the applicability of a Convention provision is an issue falling under the Court's jurisdiction ratione materiae and that the relevant analysis should be carried out at the admissibility stage, unless there is a particular reason to join this question to the merits (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 93, 25 September 2018).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 41723/06

  EGMR zur "negativen Meinungsfreiheit"
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 25551/05

  KOROLEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23536/94

  Strafrechtliche Verfolgung auf Grund der Veröffentlichung eines Buches mit …
• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 44920/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 6106/16

  SAURE v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 31475/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.03.2020 - 10090/16
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 5380/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 48155/06

  JUHAS DURIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 07.09.2021 - 40761/19

  BARTOLO v. MALTA
• EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 2591/19

  GACHECHILADZE v. GEORGIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 6091/16

  Auskunftsausspruch: Namen von Stasi-Richtern müssen nicht offengelegt werden

  39. In sum, the Court is satisfied that the applicant, a journalist, wished to exercise the right to impart information on a matter of public interest and sought access to information to that end under Article 10 of the Convention (see also Yuriy Chumak v. Ukraine, no. 23897/10, § 33, 18 March 2021, and Seks v. Croatia, no. 39325/20, § 43, 3 February 2022).

  56. The interests to be balanced against the applicant's interest in disclosure of the information are not limited to the rights of others (see, for example, Seks v. Croatia, no. 39325/20, § 61, 3 February 2022, and Saure v. Germany, no. 8819/16, § 51, 8 November 2022, both of which involved national security concerns) and include maintaining the authority of the judiciary, as set out in paragraph 2 of Article 10.57.

• EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 8819/16

  SAURE v. GERMANY

  It was in accordance with the law, namely section 5 of the Federal Archives Act (see paragraphs 6, 7, 12 and 24 above), it pursued two legitimate aims foreseen in Article 10 § 2 of the Convention, namely the protection of national security and preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence (see also Šeks v. Croatia, no. 39325/20, § 61, 3 February 2022), and it was "necessary in a democratic society", for the reasons set out below.
• EGMR, 17.09.2026 - 22685/17

  IRAVUNKI YEVROPA MIAVORUM v. ARMENIA and 1 other application

  The applicant NGO's claim seeking that the Council of Justice be obliged to provide the requested information in its entirety was dismissed by the Administrative Court in its judgment of 19 October 2015 (case no. ÕŽÔ´/1169/05/15).

• EGMR, 21.03.2024 - 10103/20

  SIEC OBYWATELSKA WATCHDOG POLSKA v. POLAND

  Therefore, in cases concerning freedom of expression the application of this admissibility criterion should take due account of the importance of that freedom and should be subject to careful scrutiny by the Court (see Syłka v. Poland, no. 19219/07 (dec.) § 28, 3 June 2014; Margulev v. Russia, no. 15449/09, § 41, 8 October 2019 and Šeks v. Croatia, no. 39325/20, § 48, 3 February 2022).
• EGMR, 04.03.2025 - 4326/18

  GIRGINOVA v. BULGARIA

  The conclusion that the refusal to provide the applicant with the reasons given by the Sofia City Court to acquit the former Minister of Internal Affairs engaged Article 10 of the Convention (see paragraph 69 above), inevitably leads to the conclusion that the refusal interfered with her rights under that Article (see Šeks v. Croatia, no. 39325/20, § 60, 3 February 2022; Saure (no. 2), cited above, § 51; and Zöldi, cited above, § 43).
• EGMR, 21.04.2026 - 20066/18

  NEDERLANDSE OMROEP STICHTING AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  At the same time, the Court has held that the question of applicability falls within its jurisdiction ratione materiae and should therefore normally be examined at the admissibility stage, unless there is a particular reason to join it to the merits (see Šeks v. Croatia, no. 39325/20, § 35, 3 February 2022, with further references).
• EGMR, 16.10.2025 - 18049/18

  MSL, TOV v. UKRAINE

  If there was no possibility of challenging effectively the executive's assertion that national security was at stake, the State authorities would be able to encroach arbitrarily on rights protected by the Convention (see Šeks v. Croatia, no. 39325/20, § 64, 3 February 2022, with further references).
• EGMR, 18.06.2024 - 58029/12

  SUPRUN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has granted a high level of protection to NGOs exercising a public watchdog role of similar importance to that of the press (see Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, §§ 103-104, ECHR 2013 (extracts)) and also to academic researchers and authors of literature on matters of public concern (see Šeks v. Croatia, no. 39325/20, § 41, 3 February 2022, and the case-law cited therein).
• EGMR, 05.02.2026 - 46238/20

  MORAWIEC v. POLAND

  Rn. 27 The Court refers to the general principles concerning the application of the admissibility criterion under Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention as set out for instance in Šeks v. Croatia (no. 39325/20, § 47, 3 February 2022).
• EGMR, 13.06.2024 - 56138/18

  RFE/RL INC. v. AZERBAIJAN and 3 other applications

  Following the entry into force of Protocol No. 15 on 1 August 2021, the latter criterion is no longer required, and the Court may declare an application inadmissible on the grounds of no significant disadvantage, even if this has not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal (see Šeks v. Croatia, no. 39325/20, § 47, 3 February 2022, with further references).
• EGMR, 28.02.2023 - 80857/17

  MITOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 03.02.2026 - 5067/23

  BEGIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 04.04.2024 - 49049/18

  ZÖLDI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 04.12.2025 - 5497/17

  KHAGHAGHUTYAN YERKKHOSUTYUN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 18.11.2025 - 50756/17

  STANEV ET COMITÉ HELSINKI BULGARE c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 05.06.2025 - 9989/20

  STRAISTEANU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 50012/17

  IKOTITY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 22.06.2023 - 23851/20

  X AND E v. IRELAND and 1 other application
• EGMR - 10551/22 (anhängig)

  HUMANITARIAN LAW CENTRE v. SERBIA and 10 other applications
• EGMR - 38564/23 (anhängig)

  VOULIWATCH NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATION v. GREECE