Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND MILASHINA v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND MILASHINA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 10 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8918/05

  GREBNEVA AND ALISIMCHIK v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 45083/06

  It is mindful that public prosecutors, as part of the judicial machinery in the broader sense of the term, should enjoy protection from offensive and abusive verbal attacks and unfounded accusations (see Lesník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, §§ 53-54, ECHR 2003-IV, and Grebneva and Alisimchik v. Russia, no. 8918/05, § 60, 22 November 2016).
• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 45083/06

  Before assessing the domestic courts" interpretation of the impugned statements, the Court, taking into account its findings in paragraphs 59-64 above regarding the applicants" and claimants" respective positions, as well as the subject matter of the articles, considers that the margin of appreciation afforded to the domestic authorities in establishing the "necessity" of the interference with the applicants" freedom of expression was a narrow one (see Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, §§ 102-04, ECHR 2013 (extracts), and Grebneva and Alisimchik, cited above, § 61).
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 37406/03

  DYUNDIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 45083/06

  Considering that the impugned statements concerning the three claimants employed by or affiliated with the Chief Military Prosecutor's Office were not insulting (see, by contrast, Lesník, cited above, §§ 15 and 18) or attacking their personality (see, by contrast, Perna, cited above, § 13), the Court is satisfied that, as civil servants, they were subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than private individuals (see Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 47, ECHR 2001-III; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 80, ECHR 2004-XI; and Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, § 26, 14 October 2008).

 
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 20893/03

  JULY AND SARL LIBERATION v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 45083/06

  Turning to the subject matter of the impugned articles, the Court reiterates that the public have a legitimate interest in the provision and availability of information about criminal proceedings (see July and SARL Libération v. France, no. 20893/03, § 66, ECHR 2008 (extracts), and Morice, cited above, § 152).
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 45083/06

  While mindful of the need to make a careful distinction between statements of facts and value judgments (see CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 98, ECHR 2004-XI), the Court considers that the thrust of the present case is not the distinction between statements of facts and value judgments as such, but the fact that the applicants were found liable for having reported the opinions of third parties, namely R.K. and B.K.
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 45083/06

  To suggest otherwise would undermine the vital public watchdog role of the press (see Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 45083/06

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that "punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person... 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 v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 35, Series A no. 298, and Thoma, cited above, § 62).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 45083/06

  The interference must therefore be seen in the context of the essential role of a free press in ensuring the proper functioning of a democratic society (see, among many other authorities, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 62, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 45083/06

  The general principles concerning the necessity of an interference with freedom of expression, which have frequently been reaffirmed by the Court since the case of Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, Series A no. 24), were summarised in Stoll v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 69698/01, § 101, ECHR 2007-V) and reiterated more recently in Morice (cited above, § 124); Pentikäinen v. Finland ([GC], no. 11882/10, § 87, ECHR 2015); and Bédat v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, ECHR 2016):.

• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 11257/16

  Regeln für Hyperlinks konkretisiert

  In connection to the question of repetition, the Court reiterates 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 v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 35, Series A no. 298; Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 62, ECHR 2001-III § 62; and Novaya Gazeta and Milashina v. Russia, no. 45083/06, § 71, 3 October 2017).

  [21] For example, paragraph 80 of the judgment, while referring to the liability of the hyperlinker, refers explicitly to the liability criteria set out for the traditional print media in Novaya Gazeta and Milashina v. Russia, no. 45083/06, § 72, 3 October 2017.

• EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 46232/10

  TIMAKOV AND OOO ID RUBEZH v. RUSSIA

  The Court will examine the issue of whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society" in the light of the relevant principles developed in its case-law that were summarised, in particular, in Novaya Gazeta and Milashina v. Russia (no. 45083/06, §§ 55-57, 3 October 2017).
• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 22287/08

  ANATOLIY YEREMENKO v. UKRAINE

  While mindful of the need to make a careful distinction between statements of facts and value judgments (see CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 98, ECHR 2004-XI), the Court considers that the thrust of the present case is not the distinction between statements of facts and value judgments as such, but the fact that the applicant was found liable for having reported the opinion of a third party, namely Ch. (see Novaya Gazeta and Milashina v. Russia, no. 45083/06, §§ 70, 73, 3 October 2017).

 
• EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 16558/18

  KILIÇDAROGLU v. TURKEY

  The Court's assessment Whether there has been an interference 36. The Court is of the view that the award made by the Ankara District Court in its decisions of 23 October 2012, in which it acknowledged the applicant's liability for impugning the reputation of the plaintiff in the domestic proceedings (the then Prime Minister) and ordered him, pursuant to Articles 24 and 25 of the Civil Code, to pay a certain sum in respect of the non-pecuniary damage thus caused, can be regarded as an interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression protected by the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention (see Med?¾lis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others v. Bosnia-Herzegovina [GC], no. 17224/11, § 66, ECHR 2017; Novaya Gazeta and Milashina v. Russia, no. 45083/06, § 53, 3 October 2017; Verlagsgruppe Droemer Knaur GmbH & Co. KG v. Germany, no. 35030/13, § 36, 19 October 2017; and Falzon v. Malta, no. 45791/13, § 50, 20 March 2018).
• EGMR, 16.01.2020 - 59347/11

  MAGOSSO ET BRINDANI c. ITALIE

  En effet, sanctionner un journaliste pour son aide à la diffusion de déclarations émises par un tiers lors d'un entretien entraverait gravement la contribution de la presse aux discussions de problèmes d'intérêt général et ne saurait se concevoir sans raisons particulièrement sérieuses (Novaya Gazeta et Milashina c. Russie, no 45083/06, § 71, 3 octobre 2017, Dyundin, précité, § 29, et Jersild c. Danemark, 23 septembre 1994, § 35, série A no 298).
• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 2840/10

  OOO MEMO v. RUSSIA

  Domestic law and practice 17. The relevant domestic legal framework and practice have been described in Novaya Gazeta and Milashina v. Russia (no. 45083/06, §§ 35-38, 3 October 2017).
• EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 44561/11

  RID NOVAYA GAZETA AND ZAO NOVAYA GAZETA v. RUSSIA

  This could include situations where a journalist does not act in good faith in accordance with the ethics of journalism and with the diligence expected in responsible journalism dealing with a matter of public interest (see Novaya Gazeta and Milashina v. Russia, no. 45083/06, § 72, 3 October 2017).
• EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 22953/16

  STANCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  As public servants, they are subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than private individuals, and suggesting otherwise would undermine the vital public watchdog role of the press (see Novaya Gazeta and Milashina v. Russia, no. 45083/06, § 61, 3 October 2017).