Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ERLA HLYNSDÓTTIR v. ICELAND (No. 2)

  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)

  Erla Hlynsdottir v. Iceland

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ERLA HLYNSDOTTIR (II) v. ICELAND

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

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Zitiert selbst (25)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  40660/08 and 60641/08, 7 February 2012, § 102, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, §§ 59 and 62, ECHR 1999-III; Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, § 82, 1 March 2007, with further references; and Björk Eiðsdóttir, cited above, § 65).".
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 39954/08

  Axel Springer AG in Art. 10 EMRK (Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung) verletzt durch …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  The Court further reiterates that the right to protection of reputation is a right which is protected by Article 8 of the Convention as part of the right to respect for private life (see Chauvy and Others, cited above, § 70; CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 91, ECHR 2004-XI; Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, § 35, 15 November 2007; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, § 40, 21 September 2010; and Axel Springer AG v. Germany ([GC], no. 39954/08, § 83, 7 February 2012).
• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  Indeed, as the Court has previously held in the Article 10 context, "the quality of... judicial review of the necessity of the measure is of particular importance in this respect, including the operation of the relevant margin of appreciation" (see, Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 108, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 55480/00

  SIDABRAS AND DZIAUTAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  55480/00 and 59330/00, § 49, ECHR 2004-VIII).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  40660/08 and 60641/08, 7 February 2012, § 102, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, §§ 59 and 62, ECHR 1999-III; Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, § 82, 1 March 2007, with further references; and Björk Eiðsdóttir, cited above, § 65).".
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  As the Court has previously held, even where a statement amounts to a value judgment, the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether there exists a sufficient factual basis for the impugned statement, since even a value judgment without any factual basis to support it may be excessive (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 43, ECHR 2001-II; and Ferihumer v. Austria, no. 30547/03, § 24, 1 February 2007; see also De Haes and Gijsels, cited above, § 47; and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 2), 1 July 1997, § 33, Reports 1997-IV).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-I; V and Björk Eiðsdóttir, cited above, § 63).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  However, the Court's task is not to take the place of the domestic courts but rather to review under Article 10 the decisions they have taken (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I; and Pedersen and Baadsgaard, cited above, § 69).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  The Court will thus go on to consider the impugned article as a whole and have particular regard to the words used in the disputed part of the article and the context in which it was published, as well as the manner in which it was prepared (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 5266/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  In its contextual examination of the disputed statement as a whole, the Court must carry out its own evaluation of the impugned statement (see, amongst other authorities, Nikowitz and Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria, no. 5266/03, §§ 25-26, 22 February 2007).
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 28070/06
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 34147/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 64915/01

  CHAUVY AND OTHERS v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 510/04

  TØNSBERGS BLAD AS AND HAUKOM v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 13.11.2019 - 39401/04

  MGN LIMITED AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 43380/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 69857/01

  KATAMADZE c. GEORGIE
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 30547/03

  FERIHUMER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98
• EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 26132/95

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 54145/10

  HLYNSDOTTIR (III) v. ICELAND

  In the light of these considerations, the Court finds that the respondent State failed to sufficiently show that the applicant acted in bad faith or otherwise inconsistently with the diligence expected of a responsible journalist reporting on a matter of public interest (see Erla Hlynsdottir v. Iceland (no. 2), no. 54125/10, § 75, 21 October 2014).

  [2] Erla Hlynsdottir v. Iceland (no. 2), no. 54125/10, 21 October 2014.

• EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 22636/19

  Oben-Ohne Protest in katholischer Kirche: Bewährungsstrafe gegen Aktivistin …

  45. Pour évaluer la pertinence et la suffisance des conclusions retenues par les juridictions nationales, la Cour, conformément au principe de subsidiarité, prend en considération la manière dont ces dernières ont effectué la mise en balance des intérêts contradictoires en jeu à la lumière de sa jurisprudence bien établie en la matière (voir Erla Hlynsdottir c. Islande (no 2), no 54125/10, § 54, 21 octobre 2014, Ergündoan c. Turquie, no 48979/10, § 24, 17 avril 2018).
• EGMR, 15.10.2026 - 43918/18

  SURADYEYEV v. UKRAINE

  While the existence of facts can be demonstrated, the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof (see Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 103, and Erla Hlynsdόttir v. Iceland (no. 2), no. 54125/10, § 66, 21 October 2014).

• EGMR, 03.07.2025 - 40899/22

  LUDES ET THONON c. FRANCE et 2 autres affaires

  Rn. 94 Pour évaluer la pertinence et la suffisance des conclusions retenues par les juridictions nationales, la Cour, conformément au principe de subsidiarité, prend en considération la manière dont ces dernières ont effectué la mise en balance des intérêts contradictoires en jeu à la lumière de sa jurisprudence bien établie en la matière (voir Erla Hlynsdottir c. Islande (no 2), no 54125/10, § 54, 21 octobre 2014, et Ergündoğan c. Turquie, no 48979/10, § 24, 17 avril 2018).
• EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 48979/10

  ERGÜNDOGAN c. TURQUIE

  Pour évaluer la pertinence et la suffisance des conclusions des juridictions nationales, la Cour, conformément au principe de subsidiarité, prend en considération la manière dont ces dernières ont effectué la mise en balance des intérêts contradictoires en jeu à la lumière de sa jurisprudence bien établie en la matière (voir Erla Hlynsdottir c. Islande (no 2), no 54125/10, § 54, 21 octobre 2014).
• EGMR, 04.06.2024 - 618/18

  SOKOLOVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Pour évaluer la pertinence et la suffisance des conclusions retenues par les juridictions nationales, la Cour, conformément au principe de subsidiarité, prend en considération la manière dont ces dernières ont effectué la mise en balance des intérêts contradictoires en jeu à la lumière de sa jurisprudence bien établie en la matière (Erla Hlynsdottir c. Islande (no 2), no 54125/10, § 54, 21 octobre 2014, et Ergündoğan c. Turquie, no 48979/10, § 24, 17 avril 2018).
• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 6875/05

  SAYGILI AND KARATAS v. TURKEY

  In assessing the relevance and sufficiency of the national courts' findings, the Court, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, takes into account the extent to which the former balanced the conflicting rights implicated in the case, in the light of the Court's established case-law in this area (see Erla Hlynsdottir v. Iceland (no. 2), no. 54125/10, § 54, 21 October 2014).
• EGMR, 07.05.2024 - 28345/16

  THOMAIDIS c. GRÈCE

  The Court cannot but conclude from all the above that the applicant aimed for a sensationalised coverage of V.M.'s alleged role in match fixing and invited the viewers to reach a foregone conclusion on his guilt (compare Bédat, cited above, § 60, and contrast Erla Hlynsdόttir v. Iceland (no. 2), no. 54125/10, § 73, 21 October 2014).
• EGMR, 23.09.2021 - 26826/16

  RINGIER AXEL SPRINGER SLOVAKIA, A.S. v. SLOVAKIA

  The courts also failed to sufficiently show that the applicant company had acted in bad faith or otherwise inconsistently with the diligence expected of a responsible journalist reporting on a matter of public interest (see Erla Hlynsdóttir v. Iceland (no. 2), no. 54125/10, § 75, 21 October 2014).
• EGMR, 12.03.2024 - 2156/16

  UNGUR v. ROMANIA

  While the existence of facts can be demonstrated, the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof (see Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 103; Erla Hlynsdόttir v. Iceland (no. 2), no. 54125/10, § 66, 21 October 2014).
• EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 32368/19

  DANE?ž c. ROUMANIE et 2 autrres affaires
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 422/11

  KOMMERSANT ZAO AND VORONOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.03.2016 - 46443/09

  BJÖRK EIDSDOTTIR AND 3 OTHER CASES AGAINST ICELAND