Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MILISAVLJEVIC v. SERBIA

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 50123/06

  The Court holds that this provision was both adequately accessible and foreseeable, that is to say it was formulated with sufficient precision to enable the individual - if need be with appropriate advice - to regulate his or her conduct (see, among many other authorities, The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 49, Series A no. 30).
• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 50123/06

  Where the balancing exercise between those two rights has been undertaken by the national authorities in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, the Court would require strong reasons to substitute its view for that of the domestic courts (see MGN Limited, cited above, §§ 150 and 155, and Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06, § 57, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 38435/05

  BODROZIC AND VUJIN v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 50123/06

  Irrespective of the severity of the penalty which is liable to be imposed, a recourse to the criminal prosecution of journalists for purported insults, with the attendant risk of a criminal conviction and a criminal penalty, for criticising a public figure in a manner which can be regarded as personally insulting, is likely to deter journalists from contributing to the public discussion of issues affecting the life of the community (see paragraph 19 above; see, also, Bodrozic and Vujin v. Serbia, no. 38435/05, § 39, 23 June 2009, and Grebneva and Alisimchik v. Russia, no. 8918/05, § 65, 22 November 2016 (not yet final)).
• EGMR, 28.09.2000 - 37698/97

  LOPES GOMES DA SILVA c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 50123/06

  In the Court's view, what matters is not that the applicant was issued a judicial warning "only", but that she was convicted for an insult at all (see Lopes Gomes da Silva v. Portugal, no. 37698/97, § 36, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8918/05

  GREBNEVA AND ALISIMCHIK v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 50123/06

  Irrespective of the severity of the penalty which is liable to be imposed, a recourse to the criminal prosecution of journalists for purported insults, with the attendant risk of a criminal conviction and a criminal penalty, for criticising a public figure in a manner which can be regarded as personally insulting, is likely to deter journalists from contributing to the public discussion of issues affecting the life of the community (see paragraph 19 above; see, also, Bodrozic and Vujin v. Serbia, no. 38435/05, § 39, 23 June 2009, and Grebneva and Alisimchik v. Russia, no. 8918/05, § 65, 22 November 2016 (not yet final)).

• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 47238/19

  ALMEIDA ARROJA v. PORTUGAL

  The Court reiterates that the fact that a person has been convicted may in some cases be more important than the penalty imposed, irrespective of its severity (see Bédat, cited above, § 79; Lopes Gomes da Silva v. Portugal, no. 37698/97, § 36, 28 September 2000; Standard Verlags GmbH and Krawagna-Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 19710/02, § 59, 2 November 2006; and Milisavljevic v. Serbia, no. 50123/06, § 41, 4 April 2017).
• EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 48979/10

  ERGÜNDOGAN c. TURQUIE

  La Cour estime que l'absence de cette mise en balance et l'insuffisance de motivation des décisions des juridictions internes sont, en soi, problématiques au regard de l'article 10 de la Convention (voir, mutatis mutandis, Nadtoka c. Russie, no 38010/05, § 47, 31 mai 2016, et Milisavljevic c. Serbie, no 50123/06, § 38, 4 avril 2017).
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 61949/08

  SEFERI YILMAZ c. TURQUIE

  La Cour estime que l'absence de cette mise en balance et l'insuffisance de motivation des décisions des juridictions internes sont, en soi, problématiques au regard de l'article 8 de la Convention (voir, à cet égard, Nadtoka c. Russie, no 38010/05, § 47, 31 mai 2016, et Milisavljevic c. Serbie, no 50123/06, § 38, 4 avril 2017).

 
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 67369/16

  RADIO BROADCASTING COMPANY B92 AD v. SERBIA

  (f) the severity of the sanction imposed (see, for example, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, §§ 89-95, 7 February 2012; Milisavljevic v. Serbia, no. 50123/06, § 33, 4 April 2017; and Milosavljevic v. Serbia, no. 57574/14, § 54, 25 May 2021).
• EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 19362/18

  MESIC v. CROATIA

  It thus follows that, contrary to the Government's argument (see paragraph 59 above), the civil courts failed to carry out the required balancing exercise between Mr Jurasinovic's reputation and the applicant's freedom of expression (compare Perinçek, cited above, § 278; Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 43, 4 April 2013; and Milisavljevic v. Serbia, no. 50123/06, § 38, 4 April 2017).
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 49108/11

  SAMOYLOVA v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, whilst a private individual unknown to the public may claim particular protection of his or her right to private life, the same is not true of public figures in respect of whom limits of critical comment are wider, as they are inevitably and knowingly exposed to public scrutiny and must therefore display a greater degree of tolerance (see Milisavljevic v. Serbia, no. 50123/06, § 34, 4 April 2017, and Prunea v. Romania, no. 47881/11, § 30, 8 January 2019).
• EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 47881/11

  PRUNEA v. ROMANIA

  Accordingly, whilst a private individual unknown to the public may claim particular protection of his or her right to private life, the same is not true of public figures (see Minelli v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 14991/02, 14 June 2005, and Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 55, 30 March 2010) in respect of whom limits of critical comment are wider, as they are inevitably and knowingly exposed to public scrutiny and must therefore display a particularly high degree of tolerance (see Ayhan Erdogan v. Turkey, no. 39656/03, § 25, 13 January 2009, and Kuli?› v. Poland, no. 15601/02, § 47, 18 March 2008; see also Milisavljevic v. Serbia, no. 50123/06, §§ 32-34, 4 April 2017 and Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos.