Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JOKITAIPALE AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 7 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 10 No violation of Art. 7 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (22)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 43349/05

  In doing so, 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 themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 43349/05

  In addition, the Court is mindful of the fact that journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 38, Series A no. 313, and Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, loc. cit.).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 43349/05

  However, the Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I.).

• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 43349/05

  As to the reasoning, the Court notes that Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, but cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 61, Series A no. 288).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 43349/05

  Unlike the latter, the former inevitably and knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their words and deeds by journalists and the public at large, and they must consequently display a greater degree of tolerance (see, for example, Lingens v. Austria, cited above, § 42; Incal v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 54, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; and Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 46, Series A no. 236).
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 43349/05

  The Court concludes therefore that the interference was "prescribed by law" (see Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 34, ECHR 2002-II; Selistö v. Finland, no. 56767/00, § 34, 16 November 2004 and Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland, no. 53678/00, § 43, ECHR 2004-X, Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, cited above, § 58).
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 31457/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 43349/05

  In particular, it must determine whether the interference in issue was "proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued" and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it were "relevant and sufficient" (see Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), cited above, § 62; Lingens, cited above, § 40; Barfod v. Denmark, 22 February 1989, § 28, Series A no. 149; Janowski, cited above, § 30; and News Verlags GmbH & Co.KG v. Austria, no. 31457/96, § 52, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 53678/00

  Karhuvaara und Iltalehti / Finnland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 43349/05

  The Court concludes therefore that the interference was "prescribed by law" (see Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 34, ECHR 2002-II; Selistö v. Finland, no. 56767/00, § 34, 16 November 2004 and Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland, no. 53678/00, § 43, ECHR 2004-X, Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, cited above, § 58).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 43349/05

  The need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, for example, Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 41, Series A no. 103, and Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 41205/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 43349/05

  In the cases in which the Court has had to balance the protection of private life against freedom of expression, it has stressed the contribution made by photos or articles in the press to a debate of general interest (see Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, §§ 59 et seq., ECHR 2001-I; News Verlags GmbH & Co. KG v. Austria, cited above, §§ 52 et seq.; and Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG v. Austria, no. 34315/96, §§ 33 et seq., 26 February 2002).
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13704/88
• EGMR, 16.04.2009 - 34438/04
• EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11508/85
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 6372/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 25711/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74
• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  Kokkinakis ./. Griechenland
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 25576/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 8304/78
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 76682/01

  P4 RADIO HELLE NORGE ASA contre la NORVEGE
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 6806/06

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Januar 2009; und Jokitaipale und andere ./. Finnland, Nr. 43349/05, Rdnr. 68, 6.
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 39954/08

  Axel Springer AG in Art. 10 EMRK (Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung) verletzt durch …

  Januar 2009; und Jokitaipale und andere ./. Finnland, Nr. 43349/05, Rdnr. 68, 6.
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 25576/04

  [ENG]

  Similar damages had been ordered to be paid to her also in respect of other articles published in other magazines which all stemmed from the same facts (see cases Tuomela and others v. Finland, cited above; Jokitaipale and others v. Finland, no. 43349/05, 6 April 2010; Soila v. Finland, no. 6806/06, 6 April 2010; and Iltalehti and Karhuvaara, no. 6372/06, 6 April 2010).

• EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 73087/17

  BALASKAS v. GREECE

  66298/01 and 15653/02, § 47, 13 December 2005; Reklos and Davourlis v. Greece, no. 1234/05, § 42, 15 January 2009; and Jokitaipale and Others v. Finland, no. 43349/05, § 68, 6 April 2010).
• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 25790/11

  ALMEIDA LEITAO BENTO FERNANDES c. PORTUGAL

  Pour finir, la Cour rappelle que la nature et la gravité des sanctions infligées sont des éléments à prendre en considération lorsqu'il s'agit de mesurer la proportionnalité de l'ingérence par rapport aux buts qu'elle poursuit (Pedersen et Baadsgaard, précité, § 93 ; et Jokitaipale et autres c. Finlande, no 43349/05, § 77, 6 avril 2010).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 29576/09

  [ENG]

  The Court thus found, in one case, that the use of certain terms in relation to an individual's private life was not "justified by considerations of public concern" and that those terms did not "[bear] on a matter of general importance" (see Tammer, cited above, § 68) and went on to hold that there had not been a violation of Article 10. In another case, however, the Court attached particular importance to the fact that the subject in question was a news item of "major public concern" and that the published photographs "did not disclose any details of [the] private life" of the person in question (see Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, cited above, § 37) and held that there had been a violation of Article 10. In a group of Finnish cases the Court found that a private person could, by her behaviour, be taken to have entered the public domain and that the disclosure of her identity in a newspaper report had a direct bearing on matters of public interest (see Flinkkilä and Others v. Finland, cited above, §§ 83 and 85; Tuomela and Others v. Finland, no. 25711/04, §§ 56 and 58, 6 April 2010; Jokitaipale and Others v. Finland, no. 43349/05, §§ 71 and 73, 6 April 2010; Soila v. Finland, no. 6806/06, §§ 68 and 70, 6 April 2010; and Iltalehti and Karhuvaara v. Finland, no. 6372/06, §§ 60 and 62, 6 April 2010).
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 6372/06

  [ENG]

  Therefore, the Court considers that there was a continuing element of public interest involved also in respect of B. In this connection, the Court notes that, when assessing the cases stemming from the incident of 4 December 1996, the national courts also reached different conclusions as to whether B. could be considered as having waived her right to privacy when choosing to become involved with a public figure and in being a party to the incident, leading also to her conviction (see Tuomela and others v. Finland, cited above; Flinkkilä and others v. Finland, cited above; and Jokitaipale and others v. Finland, no. 43349/05, 6 April 2010).
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 25711/04

  [ENG]

  Similar damages had been ordered to be paid to her also in respect of other articles published in other magazines which all stemmed from the same facts (see cases Flinkkilä and others v. Finland, cited above; Jokitaipale and others v. Finland, no. 43349/05, 6 April 2010; Soila v. Finland, no. 6806/06, 6 April 2010; and Iltalehti and Karhuvaara, no. 6372/06, 6 April 2010).
• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 12717/06

  KRAVTAS v. LITHUANIA

  In such circumstances, the Court holds that on that date the applicant officially learned of the investigation and began to be affected by it (see Jokitaipale and Others v. Finland, no. 43349/05, § 29, 6 April 2010).
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 6806/06

  [ENG]

  On 28 November 2001 the public prosecutor brought charges under Chapter 27, section 3(a), paragraph 2, of the Penal Code against the applicant as well as the editor-in-chief (see Jokitaipale and others v. Finland, no. 43349/05, 6 April 2010), in Vantaa District Court.