Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANDRUSHKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 10 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 29372/02

  KARMAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 4260/04

  In so doing, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and, moreover, that they based their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 32, 14 December 2006, and Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, §§ 26-27, 21 July 2005, with further references).

  A lack of procedural fairness and equality may give rise to a breach of Article 10 (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 95, ECHR 2005-II, Kwiecien, cited above, §§ 46 and 55; Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 48, Series A no. 236; Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 42, 14 December 2006; and Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 45, ECHR 2001-II).

• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 4260/04

  A lack of procedural fairness and equality may give rise to a breach of Article 10 (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 95, ECHR 2005-II, Kwiecien, cited above, §§ 46 and 55; Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 48, Series A no. 236; Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 42, 14 December 2006; and Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 45, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 4260/04

  The requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is impossible to fulfil and infringes freedom of opinion itself, which is a fundamental part of the right secured by Article 10 (see Lingens, cited above, § 46, and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), 23 May 1991, § 63, Series A no. 204).

• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 4260/04

  A lack of procedural fairness and equality may give rise to a breach of Article 10 (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 95, ECHR 2005-II, Kwiecien, cited above, §§ 46 and 55; Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 48, Series A no. 236; Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 42, 14 December 2006; and Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 45, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 4260/04

  A lack of procedural fairness and equality may give rise to a breach of Article 10 (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 95, ECHR 2005-II, Kwiecien, cited above, §§ 46 and 55; Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 48, Series A no. 236; Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 42, 14 December 2006; and Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 45, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 38432/97

  THOMA v. LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 4260/04

  The Court considers that the sum which the applicant had to pay to the plaintiff in the defamation action may be taken into account (compare Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 71, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 4260/04

  Such are the demands of 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 Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 37, Series A no. 298).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 4260/04

  Such are the demands of 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 Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 37, Series A no. 298).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00

  ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 4260/04

  The Court reiterates in this respect that publishers, irrespective of whether they associate themselves with the content of their publications, play a full part in the exercise of freedom of expression by providing authors with a medium (see Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 22, ECHR 2004-IV, with further references).
• EGMR, 21.11.2002 - 36747/02

  ARSLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 4260/04

  The date of introduction is accordingly the date on which the first letter was written by the applicant or, where there is an undue delay between this date and the date on which the letter was posted, the Court may decide that the postage date shall be considered to be the date of introduction (see Gaspari v. Slovenia, no. 21055/03, § 35, 21 July 2009; Calleja v. Malta (dec.), no. 75274/01, 18 March 2004; and Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, ECHR 2002-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 37406/03

  DYUNDIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 12365/03

  KRASULYA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 73219/01

  FILATENKO v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.04.2015 - 29369/10

  MORICE v. FRANCE

  In addition, the existence of procedural safeguards for the benefit of a defendant in defamation proceedings is among the factors to be taken into account in assessing the proportionality of an interference under Article 10. In particular, it is important for the defendant to be afforded a realistic chance to prove that there was a sufficient factual basis for his allegations (see, among other authorities, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 95, ECHR 2005-II; Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 53, 14 October 2010; Dilipak and Karakaya v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 40877/07

  [FRE]

  A lack of procedural fairness and equality may give rise to a breach of Article 10 (see, for example, Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 53, 14 October 2010, and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 95, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 11157/04

  ANCHUGOV v. RUSSIA

  The date of introduction is accordingly the date on which the first letter was written by the applicant or, where there is an undue delay between this date and the date on which the letter was posted, the Court may decide that the date of posting shall be considered to be the date of introduction (see Gaspari v. Slovenia, no. 21055/03, § 35, 21 July 2009; Calleja v. Malta (dec.), no. 75274/01, 18 March 2004; Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, ECHR 2002-X (extracts); and Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 32, 14 October 2010).

• EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 16901/03

  [ENG]

  Nevertheless, it fails to see the pertinence of the forum chosen by the applicant for expressing his critical views and does not consider that the context in which they were published warranted the application of the same "high tolerance" standard appropriate for media cases such as Lingens (cited above, §§ 41-42), or for other cases involving expression in the context of pluralistic debate and exchange of opinions on matters of serious public concern (see Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, §§ 41 and 45-46, 14 October 2010 and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 89, ECHR 2005-II).

  The Court next observes that it has not been argued in the present case that the applicant was precluded from submitting any evidence he deemed necessary in support of the veracity of the challenged factual statements in the domestic proceedings (compare and contrast with Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 55, 14 October 2010) or, more generally, that the courts made their decisions without analysing some material important for contextual assessment of the applicant's publication (compare and contrast with Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 3), no. 37986/09, §§ 80 and 84, 7 January 2014).

• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 25147/09

  TERENTYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has on many occasions pointed to the deficiency in the Russian law on defamation whereby it refers uniformly to "statements" and posits the assumption - as the present case illustrates - that any such "statement" is amenable to proof in civil proceedings (see Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia, no. 27570/03, § 52, 21 December 2010; Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, §§ 50-52, 14 October 2010; Fedchenko v. Russia, no. 33333/04, §§ 36-41, 11 February 2010; Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 47, 31 July 2007; Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 38, 14 December 2006; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 29, 5 October 2006; and Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, § 29, 21 July 2005).
• EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 42911/08

  [ENG]

  The Court reiterates in this respect that publishers, irrespective of whether they associate themselves with the content of publications, play a full part in the exercise of freedom of expression by providing authors with a medium (see Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 22, ECHR 2004-IV; and Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 42, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 37986/09

  RINGIER AXEL SPRINGER SLOVAKIA, A.S. v. SLOVAKIA

  In addition, as regards the procedural guarantees inherent in Article 10 of the Convention (see, for example, Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 53, 14 October 2010, with further references), the Court observes that, in defence of its substantive rights under Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant company lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution.
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 28727/11

  [ENG]

  The date of introduction was accordingly the date on which the first letter was written by the applicant or, where there was an undue delay between this date and the date on which the letter was posted, the Court could decide that the postage date should be considered to be the date of introduction (see Gaspari v. Slovenia, no. 21055/03, § 35, 21 July 2009; Calleja v. Malta (dec.), no. 75274/01, 18 March 2004; Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, ECHR 2002-X (extracts); and Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 32, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 33501/04

  [ENG]

  The Court has on many occasions pinpointed the structural deficiency of the Russian law on defamation which made no distinction between value judgments and statements of fact, referring uniformly to "statements" ("svedeniya"), and proceeded from the assumption that any such "statement" was amenable to proof in civil proceedings (see Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe, cited above, § 52; Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, §§ 50-52, 14 October 2010; Fedchenko v. Russia, no. 33333/04, §§ 36-41, 11 February 2010; Dyuldin and Kislov, cited above, § 47; Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 38, 14 December 2006; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 29, 5 October 2006, and Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, § 29, 21 July 2005).
• EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 39748/05

  [ENG]

  The Court has on many occasions pointed to the deficiency in Russian law on defamation referring uniformly to "statements" and positing the assumption - as the present case illustrates - that any such "statement" is amenable to proof in civil proceedings (see Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia, no. 27570/03, § 52, 21 December 2010; Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, §§ 50-52, 14 October 2010; Fedchenko, cited above, § 36; Dyuldin and Kislov, cited above, § 47; Karman, cited above, § 38; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 29, 5 October 2006; and Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, § 29, 21 July 2005).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 9406/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 11867/09

  SOLTÉSZ v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 34364/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 19382/08

  LYKIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 34598/12

  KOSC v. POLAND
• EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 28357/11

  AVDIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 9096/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 5699/11

  LUCIC v. CROATIA