Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OOO IZDATELSKIY TSENTR KVARTIRNYY RYAD v. RUSSIA

  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 ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 39748/05

  The general principles concerning the necessity of an interference with freedom of expression, which have been frequently reaffirmed by the Court since the case of Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, Series A no. 24), were summarised in Stoll v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 69698/01, § 101, ECHR 2007-V) and reiterated more recently in Morice v. France ([GC], no. 29369/10, § 124, ECHR 2015); Pentikäinen v. Finland ([GC], no. 11882/10, § 87, ECHR 2015); and Bédat v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, ECHR 2016):.
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 39748/05

  Relying on the cases of Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France ([GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 67, ECHR 2007-IV), and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark ([GC], no. 49017/99, § 78, ECHR 2004-XI), the Government emphasised that freedom of expression of journalists carried with it "duties and responsibilities", especially in the context of attacking the reputation of a named individual and infringing the "rights of others", and that special grounds were required before the media could be dispensed from their ordinary obligation to verify factual statements defamatory of private individuals.

• EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 16558/18

  KILIÇDAROGLU v. TURKEY

  The Court has thus raised the lack of distinction between facts and value judgments in several cases (see OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v. Russia, no. 39748/05, § 44, 25 April 2017; Reichman v. France, no. 50147/11, § 72, 12 July 2016; Paturel v. France, no. 54968/00, § 35, 22 December 2005; and De Carolis and France Télévisions v. France, no. 29313/10, § 54, 21 January 2016).
• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 2840/10

  OOO MEMO v. RUSSIA

  The authorities therefore failed to demonstrate that there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the interference in question and the legitimate aim pursued (see, among others, Romanenko and Others v. Russia, no. 11751/03, § 49, 8 October 2009; OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v. Russia, no. 39748/05, § 46, 25 April 2017; Cheltsova v. Russia, no. 44294/06, § 100, 13 June 2017; Skudayeva v. Russia, no. 24014/07, § 39, 5 March 2019; Nadtoka v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29097/08, § 50, 8 October 2019; Tolmachev v. Russia, no. 42182/11, § 56, 2 June 2020; and Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 27474/08

  PIROGOV c. RUSSIE

  Elle note avec satisfaction qu'en se référant à l'article 10 de la Convention les juridictions internes ont fait le même constat (paragraphe 17 ci-dessus) et qu'elles ont par ailleurs cherché à faire une mise en balance entre le droit du requérant à la liberté d'expression et le droit du plaignant au respect de sa vie privée (voir, a contrario, OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad c. Russie, no 39748/05, § 41, 25 avril 2017).

 
• 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 - 26410/10 (anhängig)

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND NIKITINSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Has there been a violation of the applicants" right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention on account of the defamation proceedings brought by the Department of the Interior of the Omsk Region? In particular, did the domestic courts give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the alleged interference with the applicants" right to freedom of expression? Did they apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention? Did they base themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v. Russia, no. 39748/05, § 46, 25 April 2017, and Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, § 24, 26 January 2017)?.
• EGMR - 61391/11 (anhängig)

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND ANIN v. RUSSIA

  Has there been a violation of the applicants" right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention on account of the defamation proceedings brought by the Administrative Directorate of the President of Russia and its head, Mr K.? In particular, did the domestic courts give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the alleged interference with the applicants" right to freedom of expression? Did they apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention? Did they base themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v. Russia, no. 39748/05, § 46, 25 April 2017, and Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, § 24, 26 January 2017)?.
• EGMR - 12562/11 (anhängig)

  LOBANOV v. RUSSIA

  Has there been a violation of the applicant's right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention on account of the defamation proceedings brought by Mr S.? In particular, did the domestic courts give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the alleged interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression? Did they apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention? Did they base themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v. Russia, no. 39748/05, § 46, 25 April 2017, and Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, § 24, 26 January 2017)?.
• EGMR - 35043/13 (anhängig)

  NOVAYA GAZETA v. RUSSIA

  Has there been a violation of the applicant company's right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention on account the commercial courts" decisions in the defamation proceedings against it? Was the alleged interference proportionate, that is, in pursuance of one or more legitimate aims and "necessary in a democratic society" in terms of Article 10 § 2? Was the applicant company punished for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person (see Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, § 142, ECHR 2015 (extracts), and Cheltsova v. Russia, no. 44294/06, § 91, 13 June 2017)? Did the domestic courts give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the alleged interference with the applicant company's right? Did they apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention? Did they base themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v. Russia, no. 39748/05, § 46, 25 April 2017, and Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, § 24, 26 January 2017)?.
• EGMR - 35034/13 (anhängig)

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Has there been a violation of the applicants" right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention on account of the defamation proceedings brought by the Administrative Directorate of the President of Russia (and, where relevant, by its head, Mr K.)? In particular, did the domestic courts give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the alleged interference with the applicants" right to freedom of expression? Did they apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention? Did they base themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v. Russia, no. 39748/05, § 46, 25 April 2017, and Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, § 24, 26 January 2017)?.
• EGMR - 56439/14 (anhängig)

  GIRIN AND NOVAYA GAZETA v. RUSSIA

  Has there been a violation of the applicants" right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention on account the domestic courts" decisions in the defamation proceedings against them? Was the alleged interference proportionate, that is, in pursuance of one or more legitimate aims and "necessary in a democratic society" in terms of Article 10 § 2? Did the domestic courts give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the alleged interference with the applicants" right? Did they apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention? Did they base themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v. Russia, no. 39748/05, § 46, 25 April 2017, and Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, § 24, 26 January 2017)?.
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 81060/12

  FATULLAYEV c. RUSSIE