Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BUSUIOC v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 with regard to certain statements No violation of Art. 10 with regard to other statements Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 61513/00
• EGMR, 21.12.2004 - 61513/00

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2004 - 61513/00

  The requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is impossible to fulfil and infringes freedom of opinion itself, which is a fundamental part of the right secured by Article 10 (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 42, ECHR 2001-II).

  The Court considers that, in requiring the applicant to prove the truth of his statements, while at the same time depriving him of an effective opportunity to adduce evidence to support his statements and thereby show their truthfulness, the finding of the Moldovan courts that the statement was defamatory could not be justified as necessary in a democratic society (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 45-46, ECHR 2001-II).

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94

  CEYLAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2004 - 61513/00

  The nature and severity of the penalties imposed are also factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention (see for example, Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-IV; Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, § 69, ECHR 2001-I; and Lesník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, § 63, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2004 - 61513/00

  The Court recalls that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 41205/98

  TAMMER v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2004 - 61513/00

  The nature and severity of the penalties imposed are also factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention (see for example, Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-IV; Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, § 69, ECHR 2001-I; and Lesník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, § 63, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2004 - 61513/00

  The Court has in several cases observed (see, in particular the above-mentioned Janowski v. Poland judgment and Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, ECHR 2002-II, § 48) that it may be necessary to protect public servants from offensive, abusive and defamatory attacks which are calculated to affect them in the performance of their duties and to damage public confidence in them and the office they hold.
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2004 - 61513/00

  The most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court is called for when the measures taken or sanctions imposed by the national authority are capable of discouraging the participation of the press in debates over matters of legitimate public concern (see, for example, Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, § 44, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 64, ECHR 1999-III, Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, § 68).
• EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87

  OTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2004 - 61513/00

  It falls to the national authorities to apply and to interpret domestic law (see, for example, Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, judgment of 20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A, p. 17, § 45).
• EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11508/85

  BARFOD c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2004 - 61513/00

  In particular, it must determine whether the interference in issue was "proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued" and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient" (see Janowski v. Poland judgment, cited above, § 30, and the Barfod v. Denmark judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149, § 28).
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2004 - 61513/00

  The most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court is called for when the measures taken or sanctions imposed by the national authority are capable of discouraging the participation of the press in debates over matters of legitimate public concern (see, for example, Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, § 44, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 64, ECHR 1999-III, Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, § 68).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2004 - 61513/00

  Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (see, for instance, the Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, pp. 29-30, § 59).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 09.06.2011 - C-163/10

  Generalanwalt Niilo Jääskinen erläutert die Bedeutung des Begriffs "in Ausübung …

  35 - Vgl. u. a. Urteile Janowski gegen Polen, Busuioc gegen Moldawien vom 21. Dezember 2004, Beschwerde Nr. 61513/00, § 64, Mamère gegen Frankreich, § 27, und Taffin gegen Frankreich vom 18. Februar 2010, Beschwerde Nr. 42396/04, § 64.
• EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 5393/04

  NICULESCU-DELLAKEZA c. ROUMANIE

  Or la qualité de gérant d'une institution publique de C.M. implique, avec certaines limites (voir, mutatis mutandis, Busuioc c. Moldova, no 61513/00, § 64, 21 décembre 2004), de pouvoir discuter des actions qu'il a menées dans le cadre de l'exercice de son mandat.
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 42396/04

  TAFFIN ET CONTRIBUABLES ASSOCIES c. FRANCE

  En outre, la Cour a déjà souligné que les fonctionnaires doivent, pour s'acquitter de leurs fonctions, bénéficier de la confiance du public sans être indûment perturbés, et qu'il peut dès lors s'avérer nécessaire de les protéger particulièrement contre des attaques verbales offensantes lorsqu'ils sont en service ; cela vaut aussi s'agissant de l'imputation diffamatoire de faits se rattachant à l'accomplissement de leurs missions (voir notamment les arrêts Janowski c. Pologne [GC] du 21 janvier 1999 no 25716/94, CEDH 1999-I, § 33 ; Busuioc c. Moldavie du 21 décembre 2004, no 61513/00, § 64 et Mamère, précité, § 27).

 
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 35016/03

  SALIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Reporting on matters relating to the management of public resources lies at the core of the media's responsibility and the right of the public to receive information (see Busuioc v. Moldova, no. 61513/00, §§ 63-64 and 84, 21 December 2004, and CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 94-95, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 16.01.2020 - 59347/11

  MAGOSSO ET BRINDANI c. ITALIE

  Or la Cour rappelle que, si l'on ne saurait dire que les fonctionnaires s'exposent sciemment à un contrôle attentif de leurs faits à l'instar des hommes politiques (Busuioc c. Moldova, no 61513/00, § 60, 21 décembre 2004, Mamère c. France, no 12697/03, § 27, CEDH 2006-XIII), les limites de la critique à l'égard des fonctionnaires agissant en qualité de personnages publics dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions officielles sont plus larges que pour les simples particuliers (voir, parmi d'autres, Med?¾lis Islamske Zajednice Brcko et autres c. Bosnie-Herzégovine [GC], no 17224/11, § 98, 27 juin 2017, Mariapori c. Finlande, no 37751/07, § 56, 6 juillet 2010).
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 24387/10

  IVANOVIC AND DOO DAILY PRESS v. MONTENEGRO

  In addition, 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 Morice, cited above, § 126; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 76, ECHR 2004-XI; Busuioc v. Moldova, no. 61513/00, § 61, 21 December 2004, and the authorities cited therein; and Karpetas v. Greece, no. 6086/10, § 69 and § 78, 30 October 2012).
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 11751/03

  ROMANENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  As the Court has held on many occasions, reporting on matters relating to management of public resources lies at the core of the media's responsibility and the right of the public to receive information (see Busuioc v. Moldova, no. 61513/00, §§ 63-64 and 84, 21 December 2004; and CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 94-95, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 17095/03

  CIHAN ÖZTÜRK v. TURKEY

  The requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is impossible to fulfil and infringes freedom of opinion itself, which is a fundamental part of the right secured by Article 10" (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 42, ECHR 2001-II, and Busuioc v. Moldova, no. 61513/00, § 61, 21 December 2004).