Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 44561/11 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
RID NOVAYA GAZETA AND ZAO NOVAYA GAZETA v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) ...
Wird zitiert von ... (23) Zitiert selbst (29)
- EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12
Mariya Alekhina u.a. ./. Russland - "Pussy Riot"-Urteil verletzt Meinungsfreiheit
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 44561/11
Opinion no. 660/2011 on the Federal Law on Combating Extremist Activity of the Russian Federation was adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission) at its 91st Plenary Session held in Venice on 15-16 June 2012, CDL-AD(2012)016-e (Opinion of the Venice Commission) (for relevant summaries, see among others, Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, § 102, 17 July 2018, and Karastelev and Others, cited above, § 46).Lastly, the fairness of proceedings and the procedural guarantees afforded are factors which in some circumstances may have to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with freedom of expression (see Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 133, 17 May 2016, and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 263-68, 17 July 2018).
- EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 57818/09
LASHMANKIN v. RUSSIA and 14 other applications
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 44561/11
For a summary of the applicable legislative provisions and judicial practice in relation to judicial review under Chapter 25 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure ("the CCP"), see Roman Zakharov v. Russia ([GC], no. 47143/06, §§ 92-100, ECHR 2015), and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia (nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 276-88, 7 February 2017).The deficiencies identified above were not remedied on judicial review (see Karastelev and Others, cited above, §§ 94-97; compare Ivashchenko, cited above, § 88; Polyakova and Others v. Russia, nos. 35090/09 and 3 others, §§ 110-14, 7 March 2017; Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, § 356, 7 February 2017; and Ustinova v. Russia, no. 7994/14, §§ 51-52, 8 November 2016, concerning the same type of judicial review procedure under Russian law).
- EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 4493/11
ATAMANCHUK v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 44561/11
On 8 December 2015 the Council of Europe's European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) adopted General Policy Recommendation No. 15 on combating hate speech (for relevant summaries, see among others, Atamanchuk v. Russia, no. 4493/11, § 29, 11 February 2020, and Karastelev and Others v. Russia, no. 16435/10, §§ 44-45, 6 October 2020).The classification of the impugned article as containing (quoting from) statements inciting racial, ethnic, religious or social discord could also have meant that the intended aim of the caution procedure in that instance was to protect the "rights of others", namely those who had been targeted by those statements (see Atamanchuk v. Russia, no. 4493/11, § 42, 11 February 2020).
- EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10
NCHR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 44561/11
On 8 December 2015 the Council of Europe's European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) adopted General Policy Recommendation No. 15 on combating hate speech (for relevant summaries, see among others, Atamanchuk v. Russia, no. 4493/11, § 29, 11 February 2020, and Karastelev and Others v. Russia, no. 16435/10, §§ 44-45, 6 October 2020).The Court concludes that the caution document and its effects can be considered as having "interfered", albeit to a different extent, with both applicant organisations' freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 § 1 of the Convention (compare Karastelev and Others v. Russia, no. 16435/10, § 75, 6 October 2020).
- EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11
MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 44561/11
Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role as "public watchdog" (see Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 165, 8 November 2016, and Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, § 126, 27 June 2017). - EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 44561/11
At the same time, it is reiterated that methods of reporting may vary considerably, depending on, among other things, the type of media in question (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298). - EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 11257/16
Regeln für Hyperlinks konkretisiert
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 44561/11
The Court has considered that "punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person in an interview would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so" (see Jersild, cited above, § 35, and, subsequently in the defamation context, Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 77, ECHR 2004-XI, and Magyar Jeti Zrt v. Hungary, no. 11257/16, § 80, 4 December 2018). - EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 42461/13
KARÁCSONY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 44561/11
Lastly, the fairness of proceedings and the procedural guarantees afforded are factors which in some circumstances may have to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with freedom of expression (see Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 133, 17 May 2016, and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 263-68, 17 July 2018). - EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 56402/12
CORREIA DE MATOS c. PORTUGAL
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 44561/11
The Court reiterates that the Contracting Parties, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, have the primary responsibility to secure the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto (see Correia de Matos v. Portugal [GC], no. 56402/12, § 116, 4 April 2018). - EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 35285/16
Beschwerde über die Verurteilung wegen Veröffentlichung des Bildes einer …
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 44561/11
The Court has previously declared inadmissible a similar complaint in respect of an applicant's conviction under the German Criminal Code (see Nix v. Germany (dec.), no. 35285/16, 13 March 2018). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97
COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 25147/09
TERENTYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 29297/18
LILLIENDAHL v. ICELAND
- EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 35090/09
POLYAKOVA v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications
- EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 28255/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 42911/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 61064/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 21666/09
RINGIER AXEL SPRINGER SLOVAKIA, A.S. v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 22649/08
OOO REGNUM v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 45083/06
NOVAYA GAZETA AND MILASHINA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 7994/14
USTINOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11
Burka-Verbot: In Würde verschleiert
- EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06
EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung
- EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25501/07
NOVIKOVA v. RUSSIA and 16 other applications
- EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 12468/15
OOO FLAVUS v. RUSSIA + 4 other applications
- EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 15449/09
MARGULEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.11.2019 - 68995/13
SCHWEIZERISCHE RADIO- UND FERNSEHGESELLSCHAFT ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 19.04.2018 - 41841/12
OTTAN c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 30.03.2006 - 64178/00
OZGUR RADYO-SES RADYO TELEVIZYON YAYIN YAPIM VE TANITIM AS. c. TURQUIE (N° 1)
- EGMR, 18.09.2025 - 1488/16
SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 7 other applications
The balancing exercise has to be carried out by the national courts in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law and the courts must apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention and must base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021).RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts), Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos.
RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts), Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code).
RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts), OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia, nos.
RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts), Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos.
RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts).
RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts), Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, 28 August 2018 (excessive broad domestic provisions on hate speech), Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code).
Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code), RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts), Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, 28 August 2018 (excessive broad domestic provisions on hate speech).
- EGMR, 06.02.2025 - 26410/10
NOVAYA GAZETA AND NIKITINSKIY v. RUSSIA
RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts).RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts).
32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism), RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts).
RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts).
RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts).
32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism), RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts).
32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism), RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts).
- EGMR, 22.01.2026 - 11146/16
GRITSEVICH AND KIMAYEV v. RUSSIA
RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts).RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts).
RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts).
RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts).
- EGMR, 06.10.2026 - 12043/19
MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN and 1 other application
Rn. 109 As regards whether legitimate aims were being pursued, the Court considers that whether the applicant's articles were a real risk to national security or public safety, or whether the interference was aimed at the prevention of disorder are also related to the issue of the relevance and sufficiency of the reasoning of the domestic courts, and therefore will be assessed with the question of the necessity of the interference (see, mutatis mutandis, RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, § 80, 11 May 2021). - EGMR - 25302/19 (anhängig)
COGITA PUBLISHING HOUSE v. RUSSIA and 19 other applications
RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts).RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts).
RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts).
RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts).
- EGMR, 26.02.2026 - 2171/18
KOCHKIN v. RUSSIA
Moreover, the Court reiterates the general principles concerning various issues under Article 10 established in its case law, in particular, as to failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021) and conviction for calls to participate in public events (see Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019).RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts.
60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019 (conviction for calls to participate in public events), RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts).
- EGMR, 11.07.2024 - 4374/18
GOGOLEV v. RUSSIA and 13 other applications
60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, as to administrative conviction for making calls to participate in public assemblies; Butkevich, cited above, §§ 30-39, Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, §§ 35-36, 24 July 2012, RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 101-13, 11 May 2021, Timur Sharipov v. Russia, no. 15758/13, §§ 25 and 34-35, 13 September 2022, Karatayev v. Russia [Committee], no. 56109/07, §§ 21-27, 13 July 2021 and Kenareva and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.Art. 10 (1) - restriction on freedom of expression for displaying a totalitarian symbol - the applicant was arrested on 07/08/2018 and sentenced to a fine of RUB 1, 000 for displaying Nazi symbols (Art. 20.3 CAO, final decision on 13/09/2018 by the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic) (RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, 11 May 2021, and Karatayev v. Russia [Committee], no. 56109/07, 13 July 2021).
(ii) on 10/11/2020 the applicant published a video on his YouTube channel which depicted banned a symbol related to a banned organisation; he was sentenced to 10-day detention (Art. 20.3. § 1 CAO, final decision on 27/01/2021 by the Khabarovsk Regional Court) (RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, 11 May 2021, and Karatayev v. Russia [Committee], no. 56109/07, 13 July 2021).
- EGMR, 06.10.2026 - 45738/22
UGUR c. TÜRKIYE
In this regard, the Court reiterates that Article 10 of the Convention leaves it to journalists to decide what details ought to be published in order to ensure an article's credibility (see RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, § 86, 11 May 2021). - EGMR, 12.09.2024 - 74186/17
ORLOVSKIY AND SANGORSKIY v. RUSSIA and 16 other applications
56896/17 and 4 others, §§ 58 and 65-66, 21 November 2023, as to the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for civil liability for damage caused during peaceful protests; RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 101-13, 11 May 2021, Karatayev v. Russia [Committee], no. 56109/07, §§ 21-27, 13 July 2021; and OOO Memo v. Russia, no. 2840/10, §§ 35-50, 15 March 2022, as to various interferences with the right to freedom of expression and the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for those interferences.Art. 10 (1) - restriction on freedom of expression for displaying a totalitarian symbol - the applicant was sentenced to 3-day detention for images with the swastika (such as a cartoon-type pony with that symbol) on his social-networking account (RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, 11 May 2021, and Karatayev v. Russia [Committee], no. 56109/07, 13 July 2021).
- EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 3642/10
MUKHIN v. RUSSIA
The court decisions contain no specific reasoning on that element, including as regards the relevant principles under Article 10 of the Convention (see Kilin, cited above, § 71, and RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, § 91, 11 May 2021; see also paragraphs 74 and 75 above). - EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 5869/17
ERKIZIA ALMANDOZ c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 12385/15
YEFIMOV v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
- EGMR, 15.05.2025 - 1097/10
KASHAPOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 61177/09
KORKUT ET AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL TURQUIE c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 04.03.2025 - 75000/17
MILASHINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications
- EGMR, 06.02.2025 - 4128/18
MATVEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 20.06.2023 - 62239/12
KAYMAK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE et 1 autre affaire
- EGMR, 07.03.2023 - 54003/20
KOGAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 34241/16
KHORRSHR v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications
- EGMR, 06.03.2025 - 22584/19
YEGOROV v. RUSSIA and 11 other applications
- EGMR, 18.07.2024 - 26521/19
ZHOLOBOV v. RUSSIA and 11 other applications
- EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 71779/17
KENAREVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.09.2024 - 20291/17
VOROBYEV v. RUSSIA and 25 other applications
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10, 44561/11 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KARASTELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
NCHR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 5 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (17) Zitiert selbst (28)
- EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 31684/05
[FRE]
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10
It is also pertinent to reiterate, in view of the context being examined in the present case, that protests, including actions taking the form of physically impeding certain activities, can constitute expressions of opinion within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention (see Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 92, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 28, ECHR 1999-VIII; Lucas v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39013/02, 18 March 2003; Açık and Others v. Turkey, no. 31451/03, § 40, 13 January 2009; Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, §§ 69-71, 15 May 2014; and Słomka v. Poland, no. 68924/12, § 58, 6 December 2018; see also Chorherr v. Austria, 25 August 1993, §§ 7-8 and 23, Series A no. 266-B; Barraco v. France, no. 31684/05, §§ 26-27, 5 March 2009; and Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 20-22 and 85-86, ECHR 2015).The case of Barraco v. France (no. 31684/05, 5 March 2009), which also concerned a demonstration on a motorway, likewise ended with a finding of no violation of Article 10. As it is summarised in the Information Note of the Court published on HUDOC, the case related to Article 11 § 1 on freedom of peaceful assembly.
- EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87
CHORHERR v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10
It is also pertinent to reiterate, in view of the context being examined in the present case, that protests, including actions taking the form of physically impeding certain activities, can constitute expressions of opinion within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention (see Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 92, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 28, ECHR 1999-VIII; Lucas v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39013/02, 18 March 2003; Açık and Others v. Turkey, no. 31451/03, § 40, 13 January 2009; Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, §§ 69-71, 15 May 2014; and Słomka v. Poland, no. 68924/12, § 58, 6 December 2018; see also Chorherr v. Austria, 25 August 1993, §§ 7-8 and 23, Series A no. 266-B; Barraco v. France, no. 31684/05, §§ 26-27, 5 March 2009; and Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 20-22 and 85-86, ECHR 2015).In the case of Chorherr v. Austria (25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-B), the Court also concluded that there had been no violation of Article 10. A military ceremony was held in the Rathausplatz in Vienna to mark the thirtieth anniversary of Austrian neutrality and the fortieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War.
- EGMR, 18.03.2003 - 39013/02
LUCAS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10
It is also pertinent to reiterate, in view of the context being examined in the present case, that protests, including actions taking the form of physically impeding certain activities, can constitute expressions of opinion within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention (see Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 92, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 28, ECHR 1999-VIII; Lucas v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39013/02, 18 March 2003; Açık and Others v. Turkey, no. 31451/03, § 40, 13 January 2009; Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, §§ 69-71, 15 May 2014; and Słomka v. Poland, no. 68924/12, § 58, 6 December 2018; see also Chorherr v. Austria, 25 August 1993, §§ 7-8 and 23, Series A no. 266-B; Barraco v. France, no. 31684/05, §§ 26-27, 5 March 2009; and Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 20-22 and 85-86, ECHR 2015).In the case of Lucas v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 39013/02, 18 March 2003) the Court found the application inadmissible under Article 10 and Article 11 as being manifestly ill-founded.
- EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 57818/09
LASHMANKIN v. RUSSIA and 14 other applications
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10
For a summary of the applicable legislative provisions and judicial practice in relation to judicial review under Chapter 25 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure ("the CCP"), see Roman Zakharov v. Russia ([GC], no. 47143/06, §§ 92-100, ECHR 2015), and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia (nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 276-88, 7 February 2017).In this connection the Court refers to its findings under Article 13 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 11, in Lashmankin and Others v. Russia (nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, § 356, 7 February 2017), which also concerned the same type of judicial review procedure under Chapter 25 of the CCP.
- EGMR, 20.06.2017 - 67667/09
"Homosexuellen-Propaganda"-Gesetz in Russland: Diskriminierend - und …
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10
As to "inciting" those and other adolescents to participate in - what are presumed to have been lawful and peaceful - protest actions against the regional statute concerning minors, it is noted that in staging their demonstrations the first and second applicants did not seek to interact with any person who was manifestly under the age of majority, nor to intrude into their private space (compare Bayev and Others v. Russia, nos. 67667/09 and 2 others, § 80, 20 June 2017). - EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 41720/13
NICOLAE VIRGILIU TANASE v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10
In this way, Article 6 § 1 embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is, the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, is one particular aspect (see Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 192, 25 June 2019). - EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12
Mariya Alekhina u.a. ./. Russland - "Pussy Riot"-Urteil verletzt Meinungsfreiheit
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10
It is the interplay between the various factors, rather than any of them taken in isolation, that determines the outcome of a particular case (see Perinçek, cited above, §§ 204-08; Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 217-21, 17 July 2018; and Ibragim Ibragimov and Others, nos. 1413/08 and 28621/11, § 99, 28 August 2018). - EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10
It is also pertinent to reiterate, in view of the context being examined in the present case, that protests, including actions taking the form of physically impeding certain activities, can constitute expressions of opinion within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention (see Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 92, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 28, ECHR 1999-VIII; Lucas v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39013/02, 18 March 2003; Açık and Others v. Turkey, no. 31451/03, § 40, 13 January 2009; Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, §§ 69-71, 15 May 2014; and Słomka v. Poland, no. 68924/12, § 58, 6 December 2018; see also Chorherr v. Austria, 25 August 1993, §§ 7-8 and 23, Series A no. 266-B; Barraco v. France, no. 31684/05, §§ 26-27, 5 March 2009; and Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 20-22 and 85-86, ECHR 2015). - EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 10692/09
TERENTYEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10
The element of incitement entails there being either a clear intention to bring about the commission of acts of violence, intimidation, hostility or discrimination or an imminent risk of such acts occurring as a consequence of the particular speech used (see §§ 14-17, 148 and 169 of the Explanatory Memorandum to ECRI's Recommendation No. 15 quoted in paragraph 45 above; see also Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, §§ 77 and 84, 28 August 2018). - EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 27236/05
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10
For its part, in so far as the compatibility of a complaint ratione materiae concerns the Court's jurisdiction, it reiterates that it has previously accepted that judicial challenges under Chapter 25 of the CCP in respect of administrative decisions affecting one's rights or freedoms fall within the scope of the civil limb of Article 6 of the Convention, the absence of any monetary claim notwithstanding (see, among others and in various contexts, Lashmankin and Others, cited above, § 494; Mityanin and Leonov v. Russia, nos. 11436/06 and 22912/06, §§ 38-39 and 93-94, 7 May 2019; Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, §§ 49-53, 16 February 2016; and Polyakova and Others, cited above, §§ 40 and 126-31; see also Laidin v. France (no. 2), no. 39282/98, § 76, 7 January 2003, and Slyusar v. Ukraine, no. 34361/06, § 20, 8 March 2012). - EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 1413/08
Verstoß gegen Religions- und Meinungsfreiheit: russisches Verbot von islamischen …
- EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 35090/09
POLYAKOVA v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications
- EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 11436/06
MITYANIN v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
- EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 7994/14
USTINOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 31451/03
AÇIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 68924/12
SLOMKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 8279/16
MARDONSHOYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.03.2012 - 34361/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11
Burka-Verbot: In Würde verschleiert
- EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06
EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung
- EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25501/07
NOVIKOVA v. RUSSIA and 16 other applications
- EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 73359/10
ERGEZEN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 45044/06
KSENZ AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 15449/09
MARGULEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 61064/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 12.11.2019 - 68995/13
SCHWEIZERISCHE RADIO- UND FERNSEHGESELLSCHAFT ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 8516/08
BARAKHOYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.03.2006 - 64178/00
OZGUR RADYO-SES RADYO TELEVIZYON YAYIN YAPIM VE TANITIM AS. c. TURQUIE (N° 1)
- EGMR, 25.06.2024 - 20958/14
EGMR zur Lage auf der Krim: Russland begeht schwere Menschenrechtsverletzungen
Those deficiencies have been relied on by the Court in finding that the Federal Law on Combating Extremist Activity was not foreseeable as to its effects and did not provide adequate protection against arbitrary recourse to the warning, caution and order procedures (see, albeit in the context of Article 10 of the Convention, Karastelev and Others v. Russia, no. 16435/10, §§ 78-97, 6 October 2020). - EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 44561/11
RID NOVAYA GAZETA AND ZAO NOVAYA GAZETA v. RUSSIA
On 8 December 2015 the Council of Europe's European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) adopted General Policy Recommendation No. 15 on combating hate speech (for relevant summaries, see among others, Atamanchuk v. Russia, no. 4493/11, § 29, 11 February 2020, and Karastelev and Others v. Russia, no. 16435/10, §§ 44-45, 6 October 2020).The Court concludes that the caution document and its effects can be considered as having "interfered", albeit to a different extent, with both applicant organisations' freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 § 1 of the Convention (compare Karastelev and Others v. Russia, no. 16435/10, § 75, 6 October 2020).
- EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 31172/19
JEHOVAN TODISTAJAT v. FINLAND
By extension, this also applied to the privacy rights of individual adherents guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, particularly where those privacy rights were inextricably linked to the exercise of a religious belief or practice as in the present case (reference was made to Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania, no. 41288/15, §§ 78-81, 14 January 2020; Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, §§ 37-39, ECHR 2004-III; and Karastelev and Others v. Russia, no. 16435/10, §§ 72 and 75, 6 October 2020).
- EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 14879/20
DURUKAN c. TURQUIE
L'existence de garanties procédurales suffisantes peut être particulièrement pertinente, compte tenu, dans une certaine mesure au moins et parmi d'autres facteurs, de la nature et de l'ampleur de l'ingérence en question (Karastelev et autres c. Russie, no 16435/10, § 79, 6 octobre 2020). - EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 3642/10
MUKHIN v. RUSSIA
The Court previously considered that they had not been foreseeable as to their effects and had not provided adequate protection against arbitrary recourse to the warning and caution procedures; the scope of the judicial-review procedure at the material time had not been in compliance with Article 10 of the Convention (see Karastelev and Others v. Russia, no. 16435/10, §§ 78-107, 6 October 2020, and RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta, cited above, §§ 99-100 and 110-12). - EGMR, 22.06.2023 - 10794/12
GERMANO v. ITALY
In the light of the foregoing, and taking into account the content of the obligations imposed on the applicant (see paragraph 10 above), the Court cannot accept the Government's argument that the imposition of the measure in issue did not actually have an impact on the applicant's right to private and family life as, at the very least, it had a chilling effect on the exercise of those rights (see, mutatis mutandis, Karastelev and Others v. Russia, no. 16435/10, § 71, 6 October 2020, and S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, §§ 57 and 110, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). - EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 12385/15
YEFIMOV v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
The Court has held that the resulting uncertainty adversely affected the foreseeability of the regulatory framework, while being conducive to creating a chilling effect on freedom of expression and leaving too much discretion to the executive (see Karastelev and Others v. Russia, no. 16435/10, § 90, 6 October 2020). - EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 10271/12
KILIN v. RUSSIA
On 8 December 2015 the Council of Europe's European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) adopted General Policy Recommendation No. 15 on combating hate speech (for relevant summaries, see among others Atamanchuk v. Russia, no. 4493/11, § 29, 11 February 2020, and Karastelev and Others v. Russia, no. 16435/10, §§ 44-45, 6 October 2020). - EGMR, 18.06.2024 - 58029/12
SUPRUN v. RUSSIA
Rn. 87 Interference with the exercise of the freedom to receive and impart information, however, is not limited to instances of an outright ban on accessing information but can also consist in various other measures taken by the authorities (see Karastelev and Others v. Russia, no. 16435/10, § 70, 6 October 2020). - EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 67200/12
BODALEV v. RUSSIA
Protests can constitute expressions of opinion within the meaning of Article 10 (see Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, § 70, 15 May 2014, and Karastelev and Others v. Russia, no. 16435/10, § 88, 6 October 2020 and the cases cited therein). - EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 13918/06
SAVENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.07.2023 - 26360/19
MANOLE c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 25246/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 44652/18
PONTA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 02.11.2021 - 55674/10
ACHILOV AND IVANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.06.2024 - 22458/18
KALCICEK v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 16.01.2025 - 26252/17
SBERZI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".