Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VERLAGSGRUPPE NEWS GMBH AND BOBI v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Besprechungen u.ä.

• lehofer.at (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  Zur Fotoveröffentlichung bei Vorwürfen homosexueller Beziehungen zwischen kirchlichen Würdenträgern und Priesterseminaristen

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 59631/09

  Its relevant passages are reproduced in Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) ([GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, § 71, ECHR 2012).

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 103, 7 February 2012 with further references).

• EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 20928/05

  PETRENCO v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 59631/09

  In exercising its supervisory function, the Court's task is not to take the place of the national courts, but rather to review, in the light of the case as a whole, whether the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation are compatible with the provisions of the Convention relied on (see Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 54, 30 March 2010; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco, cited above, § 41; and Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010).
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  ALEKSEY PETROV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 59631/09

  In exercising its supervisory function, the Court's task is not to take the place of the national courts, but rather to review, in the light of the case as a whole, whether the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation are compatible with the provisions of the Convention relied on (see Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 54, 30 March 2010; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco, cited above, § 41; and Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010).

 
• EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 41205/98

  TAMMER v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 59631/09

  "85. The Court reiterates that, under Article 10 of the Convention, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent an interference with the freedom of expression guaranteed under that provision is necessary (see Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, § 60, ECHR 2001-I, and Pedersen and Baadsgaard, cited above, § 68).
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 31457/96

  NEWS VERLAGS GmbH & Co. KG v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 59631/09

  The publication of pictures depicting private conduct is not justified on the grounds of the public's interest in being informed (Neukamm, op. cit., 233, and ECHR judgment of 11.1.2000, application no. 31457/96 - News Verlag GmbH).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00

  ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 59631/09

  As set forth in Article 10, freedom of expression is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, as a recent authority, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 78, 7 February 2012, and also, among other authorities, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24; Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 42, ECHR 2004-IV; and Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 59631/09

  As set forth in Article 10, freedom of expression is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, as a recent authority, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 78, 7 February 2012, and also, among other authorities, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24; Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 42, ECHR 2004-IV; and Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 59631/09

  As set forth in Article 10, freedom of expression is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, as a recent authority, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 78, 7 February 2012, and also, among other authorities, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24; Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 42, ECHR 2004-IV; and Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 59631/09

  Furthermore, it is not for the Court, any more than it is for the national courts, to substitute its own views for those of the press as to what techniques of reporting should be adopted in a particular case (see Axel Springer AG, cited above, § 81; Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298; and Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, no. 3514/02, § 65, 10 February 2009).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 59631/09

  Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (see, as a recent authority, Axel Springer AG, cited above, § 79; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, §§ 59 and 62, ECHR 1999-III; and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 71, ECHR 2004-XI).

• EGMR, 25.02.2016 - 4683/11

  SOCIÉTÉ DE CONCEPTION DE PRESSE ET D'ÉDITION c. FRANCE

  Partant, rien ne s'opposait à ce qu'une distinction soit faite entre la publication d'un article et celle d'une photographie (MGN Limited c. Royaume-Uni, no 39401/04, §§ 148-156, 18 janvier 2011, et Verlagsgruppe News GMBH et Bobi c. Autriche, no 59631/09, § 82, 4 décembre 2012).

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ROTHE v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Besprechungen u.ä.

• lehofer.at (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  Zur Fotoveröffentlichung bei Vorwürfen homosexueller Beziehungen zwischen kirchlichen Würdenträgern und Priesterseminaristen

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00

  ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 6490/07

  As set forth in Article 10, freedom of expression is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, as a recent authority, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 78, 7 February 2012 and also, among other authorities, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24; Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 42, ECHR 2004-IV; and Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 6490/07

  As set forth in Article 10, freedom of expression is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, as a recent authority, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 78, 7 February 2012 and also, among other authorities, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24; Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 42, ECHR 2004-IV; and Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 20928/05

  PETRENCO v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 6490/07

  In exercising its supervisory function, the Court's task is not to take the place of the national courts, but rather to review, in the light of the case as a whole, whether the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation are compatible with the provisions of the Convention relied on (see Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 54, 30 March 2010; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco, cited above, § 41; and Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010).

 
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  ALEKSEY PETROV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 6490/07

  In exercising its supervisory function, the Court's task is not to take the place of the national courts, but rather to review, in the light of the case as a whole, whether the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation are compatible with the provisions of the Convention relied on (see Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 54, 30 March 2010; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco, cited above, § 41; and Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 6490/07

  Its relevant passages are reproduced in Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) ([GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, § 71, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 6490/07

  Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (see, as a recent authority, Axel Springer AG, cited above, § 79; see also Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, §§ 59 and 62, ECHR 1999-III, and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 71, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 6490/07

  Furthermore, it is not for the Court, any more than it is for the national courts, to substitute its own views for those of the press as to what techniques of reporting should be adopted in a particular case (see Axel Springer AG, cited above, § 81; Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298; and Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, no. 3514/02, § 65, 10 February 2009).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 6490/07

  As set forth in Article 10, freedom of expression is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, as a recent authority, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 78, 7 February 2012 and also, among other authorities, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24; Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 42, ECHR 2004-IV; and Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 6490/07

  In so far as the applicant repeated his argument that the content of the article had been incorrectly established and the evidence incorrectly assessed, the Court reiterates that the establishment of the facts and the assessment of the evidence before them is primarily a matter for the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 41205/98

  TAMMER v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 6490/07

  "85. The Court reiterates that, under Article 10 of the Convention, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent an interference with the freedom of expression guaranteed under that provision is necessary (see Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, § 60, ECHR 2001-I, and Pedersen and Baadsgaard, cited above, § 68).

• EGMR, 10.10.2019 - 4782/18

  Österreich verurteilt: Vorwürfe eines KZ-Überlebenden nicht geprüft

  The fact that an applicant was refused compensation in respect of a violation of his right to respect for his private life does not automatically disclose a failure on the domestic authorities" part to protect the applicant's right to respect for his private life (see Egill Einarsson v. Iceland (no. 2), no. 31221/15, § 39, 17 July 2018; Rothe v. Austria, no. 6490/07, § 78, 4 December 2012; and Küchl v. Austria, no. 51151/06, § 95, 4 December 2012).