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 ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• 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, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  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, 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, 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, 16.12.2008 - 23510/02

  VITRENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 61561/08

  The Government also referred to the Court's decision in Vitrenko and Others v. Ukraine (no. 23510/02, 16 December 2008), which, according to the Government, supported the principle that even during an election campaign an individual could not be subjected to unfair accusations by his opponent.
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 61561/08

  The Government referred to the Court's judgment in Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France ([GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 57, ECHR 2007-IV), according to which "regardless of the forcefulness of political struggles, it is legitimate to try to ensure that they abide by a minimum degree of moderation and propriety, especially as the reputation of a politician, even a controversial one, must benefit from the protection afforded by the Convention".
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 61561/08

  Journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 38, Series A no. 313).
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 21040/02

  LYASHKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 61561/08

  In this context it reiterates that in some cases it has characterised statements concerning motives and biases as value judgments (see, for example, Paturel, cited above, §§ 10 and 37, and Lyashko v. Ukraine, no. 21040/02, § 50, 10 August 2006).
• EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84

  MÜLLER AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 61561/08

  Having regard to its own case-law (see, for example, Markt Intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany, judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 165, p. 18, § 30, and Müller and Others v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133 p. 20, § 29), the Court considers that the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and the Information Act, as applied by the domestic courts in the present case, complied with the requirements of "foreseeability".
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83

  MARKT INTERN VERLAG GMBH ET KLAUS BEERMANN c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 61561/08

  Having regard to its own case-law (see, for example, Markt Intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany, judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 165, p. 18, § 30, and Müller and Others v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133 p. 20, § 29), the Court considers that the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and the Information Act, as applied by the domestic courts in the present case, complied with the requirements of "foreseeability".
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  SCHARSACH ET NEWS VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

• 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, 28.07.2020 - 53028/14

  MONICA MACOVEI v. ROMANIA

  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, Soko?‚owski v. Poland, no. 75955/01, § 45, 29 March 2005; Kwiecien 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, 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, 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 Kwiecien 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, 12.01.2017 - 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).