Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANDRUSHKO v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• 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, 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, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  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, 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, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  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, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  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

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  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, 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, 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, 21.01.2016 - 16901/03

  SIREDZHUK v. UKRAINE

  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, 04.07.2013 - 11157/04

  ANCHUGOV AND GLADKOV 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, 15.04.2014 - 40877/07

  HASAN YAZICI c. TURQUIE

  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, 21.02.2017 - 42911/08

  ORLOVSKAYA ISKRA v. RUSSIA

  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, 17.02.2015 - 28727/11

  KUDESHKINA v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  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, 19.11.2013 - 28357/11

  AVDIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  The date of lodging 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 lodging (see Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, ECHR 2002-X (extracts); Calleja v. Malta (dec.), no. 75274/01, 18 March 2004; Gaspari v. Slovenia, no. 21055/03, § 35, 21 July 2009; and Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 32, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 19382/08

  LYKIN v. UKRAINE

  In deciding to make public the letter addressed to him personally, the applicant consciously and willfully provided its authors with a medium for presenting their views, thus playing a full part in disseminating the relevant statements (see mutatis mutandis Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 22, ECHR 2004-IV, with further references, and Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 42, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 9406/05

  KUNITSYNA v. RUSSIA

  The Court has on many occasions pinpointed the structural deficiency of the Russian law on defamation, as interpreted and applied at the relevant time, which made no distinction between value judgments and statements of fact, referring uniformly to "information" ("svedeniya"), and proceeded on the assumption that any such "information" was susceptible to proof in civil proceedings (see Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, § 29, 21 July 2005; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 29, 5 October 2006; Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 38, 14 December 2006; Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 47, 31 July 2007; Fedchenko v. Russia, no. 33333/04, §§ 36-41, 11 February 2010; Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, §§ 50-52, 14 October 2010; Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia, no. 27570/03, § 52, 21 December 2010; and OOO Ivpress and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 5699/11

  LUCIC v. CROATIA

  The date of introduction was accordingly considered to be 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 have decided that the date of posting should be considered to be the date of introduction (see Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, ECHR 2002-X; Calleja v. Malta (dec.), no. 75274/01, 18 March 2004; Gaspari v. Slovenia, no. 21055/03, § 35, 21 July 2009; and Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 32, 14 October 2010).