Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FILATENKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 10 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• IRIS Merlin (Kurzinformation)

  Filatenko gegen Russland

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 73219/01
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 73219/01

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

• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 29372/02

  KARMAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 73219/01

  In so doing, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and, moreover, that they based their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see, most recently, Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 32, 14 December 2006, and Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, §§ 26-27, 21 July 2005, with further references).

  On a more general level, the Court reiterates its constant approach that the standard of proof for establishing the well-foundedness of a criminal charge can hardly be compared to that which ought to be observed by a journalist when expressing his opinion on a matter of public concern, as the standards applied when assessing someone's actions in terms of morality are quite different from those required for establishing an offence under criminal law (see, mutatis mutandis, Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 42, 14 December 2006; Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt v. Austria, no. 28525/95, § 46, ECHR 2002-I; and Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften-Verlags GmbH v. Austria, no. 58547/00, § 39, 27 October 2005).

• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 73219/01

  Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no "democratic society" (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 23, § 49, and Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 26, § 37).

  The Court reiterates in this connection that the punishment of a journalist for having worded his questions in a specific manner would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so (see Colaço Mestre and SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A. v. Portugal, nos. 11182/03 and 11319/03, § 31, 26 April 2007, and also, mutatis mutandis, Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298; Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, ECHR 2001-III; Lionarakis v. Greece, no. 1131/05, 5 July 2007).

• EGMR, 29.02.2000 - 39293/98

  FUENTES BOBO c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 73219/01

  The show was broadcast live on television, so the applicant had but a limited possibility of reformulating, refining or retracting any statements before they were made public (compare Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, § 49, ECHR 2003-XI; and Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, no. 39293/98, § 46, 29 February 2000).

 
• EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 38432/97

  THOMA v. LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 73219/01

  The Court reiterates in this connection that the punishment of a journalist for having worded his questions in a specific manner would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so (see Colaço Mestre and SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A. v. Portugal, nos. 11182/03 and 11319/03, § 31, 26 April 2007, and also, mutatis mutandis, Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298; Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, ECHR 2001-III; Lionarakis v. Greece, no. 1131/05, 5 July 2007).
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 35071/97

  GUNDUZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 73219/01

  The show was broadcast live on television, so the applicant had but a limited possibility of reformulating, refining or retracting any statements before they were made public (compare Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, § 49, ECHR 2003-XI; and Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, no. 39293/98, § 46, 29 February 2000).
• EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 11319/03

  SIC - SOCIEDADE INDEPENDENTE DE COMUNICACAO, S.A. c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 73219/01

  The Court reiterates in this connection that the punishment of a journalist for having worded his questions in a specific manner would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so (see Colaço Mestre and SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A. v. Portugal, nos. 11182/03 and 11319/03, § 31, 26 April 2007, and also, mutatis mutandis, Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298; Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, ECHR 2001-III; Lionarakis v. Greece, no. 1131/05, 5 July 2007).
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 51744/99

  KWIECIEN v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 73219/01

  The Court reiterates that, as a general rule, any opinions and information pertinent to elections, both local and national, which are disseminated during the electoral campaign should be considered as forming part of a debate on questions of public interest (see, for example, Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 51, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 11182/03

  COLACO MESTRE ET SCI - SOCIEDADE INDEPENDENTE DE COMUNICACAO, S.A. c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 73219/01

  The Court reiterates in this connection that the punishment of a journalist for having worded his questions in a specific manner would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so (see Colaço Mestre and SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A. v. Portugal, nos. 11182/03 and 11319/03, § 31, 26 April 2007, and also, mutatis mutandis, Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298; Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, ECHR 2001-III; Lionarakis v. Greece, no. 1131/05, 5 July 2007).
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 1131/05

  LIONARAKIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 73219/01

  The Court reiterates in this connection that the punishment of a journalist for having worded his questions in a specific manner would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so (see Colaço Mestre and SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A. v. Portugal, nos. 11182/03 and 11319/03, § 31, 26 April 2007, and also, mutatis mutandis, Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298; Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, ECHR 2001-III; Lionarakis v. Greece, no. 1131/05, 5 July 2007).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 73219/01

  Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no "democratic society" (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 23, § 49, and Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 26, § 37).

• EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 4977/05

  REZNIK v. RUSSIA

  As he was given the floor after the applicant (see paragraph 14 above), he could have dispelled any allegation which he considered to be untrue and presented his own version of the incident, which however he chose not to do (compare Filatenko v. Russia, no. 73219/01, § 41, 6 December 2007, and Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, § 49, ECHR 2003-XI).