Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EDITORIAL BOARD OF GRIVNA NEWSPAPER v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  REDAKTSIYA GAZETY GRIVNA, PP v. UKRAINE and 1 other application

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

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 41214/08

  In its judgments in Lingens v. Austria (8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 10) and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1) (23 May 1991, § 63, Series A no. 204), the Court drew a distinction between statements of fact and value judgments.
• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 41214/08

  Moreover, a clear distinction must be made between criticism and insult and the latter may, in principle, justify sanctions (see Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06 and 3 others, § 67, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 25716/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 41214/08

  Protection of the rights guaranteed by Article 8 as well as protection of public servants from offensive attacks which were calculated to affect them in the performance of their duties were legitimate interests recognised in the Court's case-law (citing Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 31, ECHR 2004-II, and Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999-I, respectively).

• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 510/04

  TØNSBERGS BLAD AS AND HAUKOM v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 41214/08

  While considering the articles as a whole, the Court will have particular regard to their disputed parts (see, for example, Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, § 90, 1 March 2007).
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 23954/10

  Uj ./. Ungarn

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 41214/08

  For the Court, style constitutes part of the communication as the form of expression and is as such protected together with the content of the expression (see Uj v. Hungary, no. 23954/10, § 20, 19 July 2011).
• EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 41214/08

  Thus, in the particular circumstances of the present case, an adequate analysis of the reasons given by the domestic courts can only be conducted by drawing a distinction between different elements of the articles (see, for a similar approach, Tara and Poiata v. Moldova, no. 36305/03, §§ 27-33, 16 October 2007, and Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, § 97, 9 May 2018).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64

  Matznetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 41214/08

  In its judgments in Lingens v. Austria (8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 10) and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1) (23 May 1991, § 63, Series A no. 204), the Court drew a distinction between statements of fact and value judgments.
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 53139/11

  DO CARMO DE PORTUGAL E CASTRO CÂMARA v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 41214/08

  As regards value judgments which have been found by the national courts to be of a defamatory character, the Court assesses the national court's findings on the question whether the language used in the statement was of an excessive or dispassionate nature, whether any intention of defaming or stigmatising the opponent was disclosed, and whether the statement had a sufficient factual basis (see Do Carmo de Portugal e Castro Câmara v. Portugal, no. 53139/11, § 31, 4 October 2016, with further references).
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 44436/13

  KANIA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 41214/08

  Under the terms of paragraph 2 of this provision, freedom of expression carries with it "duties and responsibilities", which also apply to the media even with respect to matters of serious public concern (see, for example, Dorota Kania v. Poland (no. 2), no. 44436/13, § 64, 4 October 2016, with further references).
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 36305/03

  TARA AND POIATA v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 41214/08

  Thus, in the particular circumstances of the present case, an adequate analysis of the reasons given by the domestic courts can only be conducted by drawing a distinction between different elements of the articles (see, for a similar approach, Tara and Poiata v. Moldova, no. 36305/03, §§ 27-33, 16 October 2007, and Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, § 97, 9 May 2018).
• EGMR, 06.03.2018 - 10644/08

  MIKHAYLOVA v. UKRAINE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  RUSTAVI 2 BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Despite the fact that the applicants had, notionally at least, further access to the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, which indeed had full jurisdiction to assess matters of fact and law, this appellate court could not redress the breach of the impartiality requirement at the first-instance level, for two reasons: firstly, the independence and impartiality of the appellate court itself was also intensely contested by the applicants; and, secondly and more critically, the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, contrary to what the majority hold in paragraph 345, failed to ensure a sufficient examination of the applicants' appeal against Judge T.U.'s decision of 19 October 2015 not to withdraw from the case (see paragraph 147 of the judgment and compare with Editorial Board of Grivna Newspaper v. Ukraine, no. 41214/08, § 68, 16 April 2019, with further references therein).
• EGMR, 17.12.2020 - 66994/14

  HRVATSKI GOLF SAVEZ v. CROATIA

  The Court also recalls that it has awarded non-pecuniary damage to juristic persons in cases in which it had found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of impartiality (see Editorial Board of Grivna Newspaper v. Ukraine, no. 41214/08, § 138, 16 April 2019, and Cosmos Maritime Trading and Shipping Agency v. Ukraine, no. 53427/09, § 104, 27 June 2019).
• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 22287/08

  [ENG]

  The general principles were reiterated in Bédat v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, 29 March 2016) and, more recently, in Editorial Board of Grivna Newspaper v. Ukraine (nos. 41214/08 and 49440/08, § 84, 16 April 2019):.

• EGMR, 16.01.2020 - 34155/08

  AGENTSTVO TELEVIDENIYA NOVOSTI, OOO v. UKRAINE

  The relevant general principles have recently been restated in Editorial Board of Grivna Newspaper v. Ukraine (no. 41214/08, §§ 84-89 and 92-98, 16 April 2019).
• EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 795/09

  OSIPOV v. UKRAINE

  The other relevant provisions can be found in the case of Editorial Board of Grivna Newspaper v. Ukraine (no. 41214/08, §§ 44 and 46, 16 April 2019).
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 50199/10

  STOROZHUK v. UKRAINE

  The relevant provisions relating to the powers of the appellate court are summarised in the case of Editorial Board of Grivna Newspaper v. Ukraine (no. 41214/08, § 44, 16 April 2019).
• EGMR, 21.11.2024 - 10987/14

  AZADLIQ AND JABRAYILZADE v. AZERBAIJAN

  Rn. 13 The general principles concerning the "necessity" of an interference have been summarised in Azadliq and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan (no. 20755/08, §§ 35-39, 30 June 2022), Khural and Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan (no. 55069/11, §§ 37-49, 6 October 2022) and Editorial Board of Grivna Newspaper v. Ukraine (no. 41214/08, §§ 84-88 and 92-98, 16 April 2019).