Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TIMPUL INFO-MAGAZIN AND ANGHEL v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Remainder struck out of the list (in respect of the second applicant) Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage financial award (total) Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 42864/05

  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 Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 42, ECHR 2001-II, and Busuioc v. Moldova, no. 61513/00, § 61, 21 December 2004).
• EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 60115/00

  Meinungsfreiheit von Rechtsanwälten bei der öffentlichen Kritik von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 42864/05

  The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41 of the Convention, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Amihalachioaie v. Moldova, no. 60115/00, § 47, ECHR 2004-...).
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 42864/05

  While the seriousness of the fine is irrelevant to the outcome of the present case, the Court takes note of its chilling effect on the applicant newspaper, and that its imposition was capable "of discouraging open discussion of matters of public concern" (see Thorgeir Thorgeirson, cited above, § 68, and CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 114, ECHR 2004-XI) by silencing a dissenting voice altogether.

 
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 42864/05

  The article thus included political expression which was critical of the Government, expression in respect of which "the limits of permissible criticism are wider" (see Castells v. Spain, judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, § 46).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 42864/05

  The Court reiterates its finding in Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom (no. 68416/01, § 94, ECHR 2005-II) that.
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 510/04

  TØNSBERGS BLAD AS AND HAUKOM v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 42864/05

  In addition, the Court reiterates "that a possible failure of a public figure to observe laws and regulations aimed at protecting serious public interests, even in the private sphere, may in certain circumstances constitute a matter of legitimate public interest" (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 50, ECHR 1999-I, and Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, § 87, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 42864/05

  In addition, the Court reiterates "that a possible failure of a public figure to observe laws and regulations aimed at protecting serious public interests, even in the private sphere, may in certain circumstances constitute a matter of legitimate public interest" (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 50, ECHR 1999-I, and Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, § 87, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83

  MARKT INTERN VERLAG GMBH ET KLAUS BEERMANN c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 42864/05

  The State therefore enjoys a margin of appreciation as to the means it provides under domestic law to enable a company to challenge the truth, and limit the damage, of allegations which risk harming its reputation (see Markt Intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany, judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 165, pp. 19-21, §§ 33-38).
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 42864/05

  In this context, the Court reiterates that, as part of their role of a "public watchdog", the media's reporting on "'stories' or 'rumours' - emanating from persons other than the applicant - or 'public opinion'" is to be protected where they are not completely without foundation (see Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, § 65).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 42864/05

  In this respect the Court reiterates that it has "to look at the interference complained of in the light of the case as a whole" (see, among many other authorities, Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, § 59).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 60798/10

  Namen der Sedlmayr-Mörder bleiben im Netz

  Nach der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs ist im Übrigen das berechtigte Interesse der Öffentlichkeit am Zugang zu öffentlichen Online-Archiven der Presse durch Artikel 10 der Konvention geschützt (ibidem) und alle Maßnahmen zur Einschränkung des Zugangs zu Informationen, auf welche die Öffentlichkeit Anspruch hat, müssen durch besonders zwingende Gründe gerechtfertigt sein (Timpul Info-Magazin und Anghel./. Moldau, Nr. 42864/05, Rdnr. 31, 27. November 2007, und Times Newspapers Ltd (Nrn. 1 und 2), a.a.O., Rdnr. 41).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 25.06.2013 - C-131/12

  Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Jääskinen sind Suchmaschinen-Diensteanbieter für …

  93 - Zum Recht auf Empfang von Informationen vgl. Urteile des EGMR vom 26. November 1991, 0bserver und Guardian/Vereinigtes Königreich (Serie A Nr. 216, § 60), und vom 27. November 2007, Timpul Info-Magazin und Anghel/Republik Moldau (Nr. 42864/05, § 34).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 08.02.2024 - C-633/22

  Real Madrid Club de Fútbol - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle …

  132 Vgl. EGMR, 2. Juni 2008, Timpul Info-Magazin und Anghel/Moldau (CE:ECHR:2007:1127JUD004286405, § 39), sowie EGMR, 26. November 2013, B?‚aja News Sp. z o.o./Polen (CE:ECHR:2013:1126JUD005954510, § 71).

 
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 3002/03

  TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1 et N° 2)

  The Court further recalls that particularly strong reasons must be provided for any measure limiting access to information which the public has the right to receive (see Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel v. Moldova, no. 42864/05, § 31, 27 November 2007).
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 6987/07

  GUSEVA v. BULGARIA

  In that connection it has held that particularly strong reasons must be provided for any measure limiting access to information which the public has the right to receive (see Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel v. Moldova, no. 42864/05, § 31, 27 November 2007; Wgrzynowski and Smolczewski v. Poland, no. 33846/07, § 57, 16 July 2013).
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  KASABOVA v. BULGARIA

  For its part, the Court considers that, in view of the overall thrust of the article (see Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 48 in limine, Series A no. 236; Perna v. Italy [GC], no. 48898/99, § 47 in limine, ECHR 2003-V; and Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel v. Moldova, no. 42864/05, § 35, 27 November 2007), those elements could be regarded as equally relevant for the assessment of whether or not the applicant had acted as a responsible journalist.
• EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 43912/10

  JALBA v. ROMANIA

  However, even where a statement amounts to a value judgment, there must be a sufficient factual basis to support it, failing which it will be excessive (see, for example, Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 76, ECHR 2004-XI, and Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel v. Moldova, no. 42864/05, § 37, 27 November 2007).
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 46443/09

  BJÖRK EIÐSDÓTTIR v. ICELAND

  The limits of acceptable criticism must accordingly be wider than in the case of a private individual or an ordinary professional (see, mutatis mutandis, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 94, ECHR 2005-II; Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel v. Moldova, no. 42864/05, § 34, 27 November 2007).
• EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 20928/05

  PETRENCO v. MOLDOVA

  However, even where a statement amounts to a value judgment, there must exist a sufficient factual basis to support it, failing which it will be excessive (see, for example, Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 76, ECHR 2004-XI; Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel v. Moldova, no. 42864/05, § 37, 27 November 2007; and Petrina, cited above, §§ 40 to 41).
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 43380/10

  ERLA HLYNSDÓTTIR v. ICELAND

  The limits of acceptable criticism must accordingly be wider than in the case of a private individual or an ordinary professional (see, mutatis mutandis, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 94, ECHR 2005-II; Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel v. Moldova, no. 42864/05, § 34, 27 November 2007).
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 77940/17

  INDEX.HU ZRT v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 24.05.2022 - 45014/16

  PRETORIAN c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 3316/04

  BOZHKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 38549/16

  KOSTOVA AND APOSTOLOV v. NORTH MACEDONIA
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 32844/10

  SECKERSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND TIMES NEWSPAPERS LIMITED v. THE UNITED …
• EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 16674/06

  TIMPUL DE DIMINEATA v. MOLDOVA