Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 51151/06, 6490/07, 59631/09 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KÜCHL 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) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KÜCHL v. AUSTRIA and 2 other cases - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
[DEU] No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
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 ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (10)
- EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93
BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 51151/06
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, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72
HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 51151/06
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 - 51151/06
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, 06.02.2001 - 41205/98
TAMMER v. ESTONIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 51151/06
"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, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96
GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 51151/06
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, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00
ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 51151/06
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 - 51151/06
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, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08
Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 51151/06
Its relevant passages are reproduced in Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) ([GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, § 71, ECHR 2012). - EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 20928/05
PETRENCO v. MOLDOVA
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 51151/06
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 - 51151/06
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, 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). - EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 28255/07
CUMHURIYET VAKFI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 20383/04
KHMEL v. RUSSIA
It mainly presupposes the individual's right to control the use of that image including the right to refuse publication thereof (see Küchl v. Austria, no. 51151/06, § 58, 4 December 2012; Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos.
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 6490/07, 51151/06, 59631/09 |
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).