Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STANKIEWICZ AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Stankiewicz and Others v. Poland

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  STANKIEWICZ AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 48723/07
• EGMR, 20.01.2016 - 48723/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (15)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 48723/07

  The Court, however, notes that the third applicant is in principle entitled to recover any sums that it has paid in fees and costs to W.D., by reason of their direct link with the Court of Appeal's judgment which the Court found to be in breach of its right to freedom of expression (see Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 50, Series A no. 103; Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 50, ECHR 2003-XI; and Yordanova and Toshev, cited above, § 78).
• EGMR, 18.10.1982 - 6878/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 48723/07

  Furthermore, an applicant is entitled to an award in respect of the costs and expenses incurred by him/her at domestic level to prevent the breach found by the Court or to obtain redress therefor (see, among other authorities, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium (Article 50), 18 October 1982, § 17, Series A no. 54).
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

  RUMYANA IVANOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 48723/07

  The research done by the applicants before the publication of their allegations was in good faith and complied with the ordinary journalistic obligation to verify the facts from reliable sources (compare and contrast, Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, §§ 64-65, 14 February 2008; Kania and Kittel v. Poland, no. 35105/04, §§ 45-46, 21 June 2011).

• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 51744/99

  KWIECIEN v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 48723/07

  In consequence, the judicial authorities did not carry out a careful balancing exercise between the right to impart information and protection of the reputation or rights of others (compare and contrast, Keller v. Hungary (dec.), no. 33352/02, 4 April 2006; Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 52, 9 January 2007; Blaja News sp.
• EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 59545/10

  BLAJA NEWS SP. Z O.O. v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 48723/07

  Z o. o. v. Poland, no. 59545/10, § 64, 26 November 2013).
• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 33352/02

  KELLER v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 48723/07

  In consequence, the judicial authorities did not carry out a careful balancing exercise between the right to impart information and protection of the reputation or rights of others (compare and contrast, Keller v. Hungary (dec.), no. 33352/02, 4 April 2006; Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 52, 9 January 2007; Blaja News sp.
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 35105/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 48723/07

  The research done by the applicants before the publication of their allegations was in good faith and complied with the ordinary journalistic obligation to verify the facts from reliable sources (compare and contrast, Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, §§ 64-65, 14 February 2008; Kania and Kittel v. Poland, no. 35105/04, §§ 45-46, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 48723/07

  These factors, in turn, require consideration of other elements such as the authority of the source (Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, cited above), whether the newspaper had conducted a reasonable amount of research before publication (Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 37, Series A no. 313), whether the newspaper presented the story in a reasonably balanced manner (Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no. 26132/95, § 57, ECHR 2000-IV) and whether the newspaper gave the persons defamed the opportunity to defend themselves (Bergens Tidende and Others, cited above, § 58).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 48723/07

  By reason of the "duties and responsibilities" inherent in the exercise of the freedom of expression, the safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see, among other authorities, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III; Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, § 63, 19 April 2011).
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 48723/07

  This determination must be based on the following general principles emerging from the Court's case-law (see, among other authorities, CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 88-91, ECHR 2004-XI, with further references):.
• EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 26132/95
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 510/04

  TØNSBERGS BLAD AS AND HAUKOM v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 25367/05

  FLUX v. MOLDOVA (No. 7)
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 46712/06

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen