Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  INSTYTUT EKONOMICHNYKH REFORM, TOV v. UKRAINE

  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 ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (24)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 61561/08

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 107, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 68354/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 61561/08

  Accordingly, any interference with an artist's or social commentator's right to such expression must be examined with particular care (see Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria, no. 68354/01, § 33, 25 January 2007; Alves da Silva v. Portugal, no. 41665/07, § 27, 20 October 2009; and Welsh and Silva Canha v. Portugal, no. 16812/11, §§ 29 and 30, 17 September 2013) even though the use of this form of expression does not rule out any possibility of restriction under paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention (see Leroy v. France, no. 36109/03, §§ 39 and 44, 2 October 2008).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 61561/08

  The Court reiterates, however, that even a value judgment without any factual basis to support it may be excessive and that the relevant test is whether a sufficiently accurate and reliable factual basis proportionate to the nature and degree of the allegation can be established (see, for example, Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 43, ECHR 2001-II).

• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 36109/03

  LEROY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 61561/08

  Accordingly, any interference with an artist's or social commentator's right to such expression must be examined with particular care (see Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria, no. 68354/01, § 33, 25 January 2007; Alves da Silva v. Portugal, no. 41665/07, § 27, 20 October 2009; and Welsh and Silva Canha v. Portugal, no. 16812/11, §§ 29 and 30, 17 September 2013) even though the use of this form of expression does not rule out any possibility of restriction under paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention (see Leroy v. France, no. 36109/03, §§ 39 and 44, 2 October 2008).
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 61561/08

  Secondly, the domestic courts did not comment on the overall context of the public debate in which the statements had been made and their subject matter (compare Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 38, ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 5266/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 61561/08

  Firstly, the Court observes that the domestic courts failed to comment on the satirical tone of the impugned statements (compare Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria, no. 13071/03, § 51, 2 November 2006, and Nikowitz and Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria, no. 5266/03, § 25, 22 February 2007).
• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 13258/09

  LILLO-STENBERG AND SÆTHER v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 61561/08

  Therefore, while the Court is satisfied that the Ukrainian courts have taken up important elements of its case-law on Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, namely the distinction between value judgments and statements of fact, and have focused only on the most controversial parts of the impugned publication, it is still not convinced that the balancing exercise has been undertaken by the national authorities in conformity with all the criteria laid down in its case-law (see, a contrario, Lillo-Stenberg and Sæther v. Norway, no. 13258/09, § 44, 16 January 2014, and Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 29271/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 61561/08

  However, the domestic courts appear to have taken these statements in isolation, removed from this context (compare, for example, Dichand and Others v. Austria, no. 29271/95, § 46, 26 February 2002).
• EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 60115/00

  Meinungsfreiheit von Rechtsanwälten bei der öffentlichen Kritik von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 61561/08

  It is therefore true that the author imputed unworthy motives to the subject of the article in highly sarcastic language (compare Amihalachioaie v. Moldova, no. 60115/00, § 52, ECHR 2004-III).
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 13071/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 61561/08

  Firstly, the Court observes that the domestic courts failed to comment on the satirical tone of the impugned statements (compare Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria, no. 13071/03, § 51, 2 November 2006, and Nikowitz and Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria, no. 5266/03, § 25, 22 February 2007).
• EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 41665/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 27447/07

  KHARLAMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 16812/11

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 4977/05
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 21040/02

  LYASHKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 32297/10

  NISKASAARI AND OTAVAMEDIA OY v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 48311/10

  EGMR-Urteil zu Schröder und Gazprom: Pressefreiheit gestärkt
• EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 23510/02

  VITRENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 22.12.2005 - 54968/00

  Paturel ./. Frankreich

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 55537/10

  HAUPT v. AUSTRIA

  Accordingly, any interference with an artist's or social commentator's right to such expression must be examined with particular care (see Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria, no. 68354/01, § 33, 25 January 2007; Alves da Silva v. Portugal, no. 41665/07, § 27, 20 October 2009; EON v. France, no. 26118/10, § 60, 14 March 2013; and Welsh and Silva Canha v. Portugal, no. 16812/11, §§ 29 and 30, 17 September 2013), even though the use of this form of expression does not rule out any possibility of restriction under paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention (see Leroy v. France, no. 36109/03, §§ 39 and 44, 2 October 2008, and Instytut Ekonomichnykh Reform, TOV v. Ukraine, no. 61561/08, § 46, 2 June 2016).
• EGMR, 06.04.2021 - 10783/14

  HANDZHIYSKI v. BULGARIA

  Accordingly, any interference with the use of this form of expression must be examined with particular care (see, among other authorities, Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria, no. 68354/01, § 33, 25 January 2007; Alves da Silva v. Portugal, no. 41665/07, § 27, 20 October 2009; and Eon, cited above, § 60), even though its use does not definitively rule out the possibility of restriction under Article 10 § 2 (see Leroy v. France, no. 36109/03, §§ 39 and 44, 2 October 2008, and Instytut Ekonomichnykh Reform, TOV v. Ukraine, no. 61561/08, § 46, 2 June 2016), or even of finding a complaint being inadmissible by reference to Article 17, in cases in which the satire is directed against the Convention's underlying values (see M'Bala M'Bala v. France (dec.), no. 25239/13, §§ 31-33 and 39-42, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.03.2020 - 10090/16
  Those matters are more appropriately examined as a question of "necessity in a democratic society" (see Instytut Ekonomichnykh Reform v. Ukraine, no. 61561/08, § 39, 2 June 2016).

• EGMR, 28.07.2020 - 53028/14

  MACOVEI c. ROUMANIE

  In this connection, the Court has already held that the manner in which a locally elected official carries out his or her official duties and issues touching on his or her personal integrity are matters of general interest to the community (see, mutatis mutandis, Sokołowski v. Poland, no. 75955/01, § 45, 29 March 2005; Kwiecień v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 51, 9 January 2007; and Paraskevopoulos, cited above, § 36) and that there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or debate on matters of public interest (see, among other authorities, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV; and Instytut Ekonomichnykh Reform, TOV v. Ukraine, no. 61561/08, § 44, 2 June 2016).
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 14220/13

  LESHCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  In any event, the question (which the applicant also raised - see paragraph 83 above) of compliance with section 6(2) of the APIA, requiring that a balancing exercise be conducted in deciding on requests for information, goes primarily to the matter of necessity in a democratic society (see Instytut Ekonomichnykh Reform, TOV v. Ukraine, no. 61561/08, § 39, 2 June 2016).
• EGMR, 16.01.2020 - 34155/08

  AGENTSTVO TELEVIDENIYA NOVOSTI, OOO v. UKRAINE

  Nor did they take into account the context, namely the subsequent broadcast in which the applicant company had clarified the situation (compare Instytut Ekonomichnykh Reform, TOV v. Ukraine, no. 61561/08, §§ 54-56, 2 June 2016).
• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 64184/11

  PARASKEVOPOULOS v. GREECE

  A politician is certainly entitled to have his or her reputation protected, even when he or she is not acting in his private capacity, but in such cases the requirements of that protection have to be weighed against the interests of the open discussion of political issues (see Instytut Ekonomichnykh Reform, TOV v. Ukraine, no. 61561/08, § 44, 2 June 2016).
• EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 19382/08

  LYKIN v. UKRAINE

  A politician is certainly entitled to have his reputation protected, even when he is not acting in his private capacity, but in such cases the requirements of that protection have to be weighed against the interests of the open discussion of political issues (see, as a recent authority, Instytut Ekonomichnykh Reform, TOV v. Ukraine, no. 61561/08, § 44, 2 June 2016).
• EGMR, 17.11.2022 - 74852/14

  ILYIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  In any event, the key issue in the case seems rather to stem from the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions by the domestic authorities, which, in the present case, are more appropriately examined in the context of whether the limitation was necessary in a democratic society (see, mutatis mutandis, Instytut Ekonomichnykh Reform, TOV v. Ukraine, no. 61561/08, § 39, 2 June 2016).
• EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 35839/13

  SAVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  In this connection, the Court has already held that the manner in which a locally elected official carries out his or her official duties and issues touching on his or her personal integrity are matters of general interest to the community (see Kwiecień v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 51, 9 January 2007, and Paraskevopoulos v. Greece, no. 64184/11, § 36, 28 June 2018) and that there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or debate on matters of public interest (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV, and Instytut Ekonomichnykh Reform, TOV v. Ukraine, no. 61561/08, § 44, 2 June 2016).
• EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 46928/07

  GOLUBENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.08.2017 - 55103/09

  REGINA LTD v. UKRAINE