Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STOMAKHIN v. RUSSIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STOMAKHIN v. RUSSIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Zitiert selbst (32)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24919/94

  GERGER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07

  On the contrary, it is clear that the above-mentioned factors in the present case significantly reduced the potential impact of the impugned statements on the rights of others, national security, public safety or public order (cf. Okçuoğlu v. Turkey [GC], no. 24246/94, § 48, 8 July 1999; Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 50, 8 July 1999; and Karataş, cited above, § 52).

  However, this Court has held that even separatist speech containing identical words, namely "struggle" and "liberation", was protected insofar it "did not constitute an incitement to violence, armed resistance or an uprising" (see, for example, Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 50, 8 July 1999; Erdal Taş v. Turkey, no. 77650/01, § 38, 19 December 2006).

• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07

  The reality of a representative's fees is established if the applicant has paid them or is liable to pay them (see Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Germany (Article 50), 10 March 1980, § 15, Series A no. 36; Artico v. Italy (13 May 1980, § 40, Series A no. 37); Airey v. Ireland (Article 50), 6 February 1981, § 13, Series A no 41; Ždanoka v. Latvia, no. 58278/00, § 122, 17 June 2004; and Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], cited above, § 372).
• EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29221/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07

  In Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, the Court found that statements that posed "no real foreseeable risk of violent action or of incitement to violence or any other form of rejection of democratic principles" did not justify banning a political association's meetings (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-IX).[13] Because the impact of the statements was so negligible, the Court in Stankov did not perform a proportionality analysis.

• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 15615/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07

  Moreover, it cannot be said that the incriminated statements were disseminated in a form that was impossible to ignore (see Perinçek, cited above, § 253, and, by contrast, Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, §§ 56-57, 9 February 2012), or in any other way that enhanced the message they were conveying (see, by contrast, Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, § 76, 16 July 2009).
• EGMR, 09.02.2012 - 1813/07

  Verurteilung wegen homophober Hate-Speech keine Verletzung der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07

  Moreover, it cannot be said that the incriminated statements were disseminated in a form that was impossible to ignore (see Perinçek, cited above, § 253, and, by contrast, Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, §§ 56-57, 9 February 2012), or in any other way that enhanced the message they were conveying (see, by contrast, Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, § 76, 16 July 2009).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 25390/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07

  This is also true for "laws" restricting Article 10, which should allow a "citizen... to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail" (see Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  Maestri ./. Italien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07

  This Court has consistently held that "the expression 'in accordance with the law' [in Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention] not only requires that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects" (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; see also Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I).
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 40984/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07

  It reiterates in this connection that it is an integral part of freedom of expression to seek historical truth, and that a debate on the causes of acts of particular gravity which may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity should be able to take place freely (see Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, § 87, 22 April 2010).
• EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07

  That discretion goes hand in hand with European supervision by the Court, whose task is to give a final ruling on whether the penalty was compatible with Article 10 (see Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, §§ 81 and 87, 15 May 2014).
• EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 49327/11

  Ohne Kleidung durch England: Nackt-Wanderer verliert

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07

  Had he been so convicted, it would have been more acceptable had the courts chosen to impose a harsh sentence on him in order to make it more dissuasive in the face of his intransigence (see Skałka, cited above, § 39, and Gough v. the United Kingdom, no. 49327/11, §§ 174-76, 28 October 2014).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57942/00

  KHASHIYEV AND AKAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 60272/00

  ESTAMIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57945/00
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23927/94

  SÜREK AND ÖZDEMIR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 50171/09

  BELGE v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03

  ESMUKHAMBETOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29225/95
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 59334/00

  CHITAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 38991/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 36305/03

  TARA AND POIATA v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24246/94

  OKÇUOGLU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 35071/97

  GUNDUZ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain
• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 36109/03

  LEROY c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 22479/93

  ÖZTÜRK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25501/07

  NOVIKOVA v. RUSSIA and 16 other applications
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 49085/07

  GÖRMÜS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94

  CEYLAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 42168/06

  DMITRIYEVSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 17170/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 5108/02

  KHATSIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 37096/97

  Karademirci u.a. ./. Türkei

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.10.2026 - 12043/19

  MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN and 1 other application

  Rn. 113 As a matter of principle, it may be considered necessary in democratic societies to sanction or even prevent all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify violence, hatred or intolerance provided that any "formalities", "conditions", "restrictions" or "penalties" imposed are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, § 40, ECHR 2003-XI, and Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, § 92, 9 May 2018).
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12

  Mariya Alekhina u.a. ./. Russland - "Pussy Riot"-Urteil verletzt Meinungsfreiheit

  This is well-established case law, which the Court also invoked in the case of Stomakhin v. Russia (no. 52273/07, § 90, 9 May 2018):.
• EGMR, 10.07.2025 - 5804/15

  STOMAKHIN v. RUSSIA and 5 other applications

  Moreover, the Court reiterates the general principles concerning various issues under Article 10 established in its case law, in particular, as to hate speech and extremist activities (see Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, §§ 90-101, 3 October 2017, and Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, §§ 92, 96 and 113, 9 May 2018), blocking of websites (see Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia, no. 10795/14, §§ 33 and 37, 23 June 2020, and OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia, nos. 12468/15 and 2 others, § 28, 23 June 2020), and disrespect for the authorities and State officials (see Karuyev v. Russia, no. 4161/13, §§ 17-19, 18 January 2022).

  Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, § 118, 9 May 2018 (glorification of terrorism).

• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 4493/11

  ATAMANCHUK v. RUSSIA

  In view of the foregoing, the Court accepts that the present case discloses exceptional circumstances justifying the sentences imposed on the applicant (compare Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, §§ 127-32, 9 May 2018).
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 69575/10

  RASHKIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has developed an enormous amount of case-law about defamation, but this has been ignored by the present judgment (see Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, 9 May 2018; Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, ECHR 2015[6]; Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 13918/06

  SAVENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Many of these cases have concerned inter-ethnic disputes between the Russian majority population and minorities such as the Chechen ethnic group: see, for instance, Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, 9 May 2018, and Finogenov and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 25.06.2024 - 15379/13

  CONSILIUL NAÈšIONAL AL TINERETULUI DIN MOLDOVA A.O. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Rn. 72 En application de sa jurisprudence (paragraphes 64-69 ci-dessus) et eu égard aux circonstances de l'espèce, la Cour opérera son analyse dans le cas présent en s'attachant au contexte de l'ingérence, à la nature de l'affiche publicitaire de l'association requérante et à son éventuelle contribution à un débat d'intérêt général, au contenu, à la forme et aux répercussions de cette affiche, et au raisonnement suivi par les juridictions nationales pour justifier l'ingérence (voir, par exemple, Stomakhin c. Russie, no 52273/07, § 93, 9 mai 2018, et Zemmour, précité, §§ 52-55).
• EGMR, 11.05.2023 - 31349/20

  CHKHARTISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  In this regard, the Court reiterates that public servants acting in an official capacity are subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than ordinary citizens and a certain degree of immoderation may fall within those limits (see, for instance, Gül and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870/02, § 41, 8 June 2010, and Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, § 106, 9 May 2018).
• EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 10271/12

  KILIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously taken into account the intention of or the purpose being pursued by the applicant, in particular where that consideration had formed part of the criminal courts' reasoning (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, §§ 32-33 and 36, Series A no. 298; Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, §§ 70-71, 16 July 2009; Perinçek, cited above, §§ 232-33; Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, §§ 115 and 123, 9 May 2018; Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, §§ 43-48, 3 October 2019; and Atamanchuk, cited above, §§ 60 and 62).
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 3642/10

  MUKHIN v. RUSSIA

  In this connection the Court refers to the principles established in cases concerning political ideas which challenge the existing order and the current principles and structures of a given State, with or without calls to violence (see Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 47, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III; Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 97, ECHR 2001-IX; The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 59491/00, § 79, 19 January 2006; Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası v. Turkey, no. 20641/05, §§ 70 and 74-75, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 96, 3 October 2017; and Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, §§ 85, 86 and 92, 9 May 2018).
• EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 5869/17

  ERKIZIA ALMANDOZ c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 41214/08

  REDAKTSIYA GAZETY GRIVNA, PP v. UKRAINE and 1 other application
• EGMR, 06.02.2025 - 11075/17

  SHARINA v. RUSSIA and 15 other applications
• EGMR, 04.06.2024 - 618/18

  SOKOLOVSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 54140/21

  JORGE LÓPEZ v. SPAIN