Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MATÚZ v. HUNGARY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression Freedom to impart information) Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• urheberrecht.org (Kurzinformation)

  Kündigung eines Journalisten wegen Kritik an Arbeitgeber in einem Buch verletzt Meinungsfreiheit

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Matúz v. Hungary

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MATÚZ v. HUNGARY

  Art. 10, Art. 11 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 73571/10

  The fundamental principles in that regard are well established in the Court's case-law and have been summarised as follows (see, among other authorities, Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 52, Series A no. 323; Hertel v. Switzerland, 25 August 1998, § 46, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI; and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 87, ECHR 2005-II):.

  In this context the Court is also mindful that employees owe to their employer a duty of loyalty, reserve and discretion (see Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 53, Series A no. 323; and Ahmed and Others v. the United Kingdom, 2 September 1998, § 55, Reports 1998-VI).

• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 40238/02

  BUCUR ET TOMA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 73571/10

  For the Court, the position of the applicant in the present case - that is, him being a journalist employed by the State television company under the general labour law - might be distinguishable from that of an employee in the public sector proper signalling illegal conduct or wrongdoing in the workplace in a situation where the employee or civil servant concerned is the only person, or part of a small category of persons, aware of what is happening at work and is thus best placed to act in the public interest by alerting the employer or the public at large (see Marchenko v. Ukraine, no. 4063/04, § 46, 19 February 2009; Heinisch v. Germany, no. 28274/08, §§ 63-64, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Bucur and Toma v. Romania, no. 40238/02, § 93, 8 January 2013).
• EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 51041/99

  SAYGILI ET SEYMAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 73571/10

  Moreover, in order to assess the justification of an impugned measure, it must be borne in mind that the fairness of proceedings and the procedural guarantees afforded (see, mutatis mutandis, Steel and Morris, cited above, § 95) are factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10. The absence of an effective judicial review of the impugned measure may also lead to a violation of Article 10 (see Saygılı and Seyman v. Turkey, no. 51041/99, §§ 24-25, 27 June 2006, and Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no. 39128/05, §§ 45-56, 20 October 2009).
• EGMR, 22.05.1990 - 11034/84

  WEBER c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 73571/10

  Nonetheless, the issue arises as to whether there was any need to prevent the disclosure of information that was already available to the public (see Weber v. Switzerland, 22 May 1990, § 51, Series A no. 177; and Vereniging Weekblad Bluf! v. the Netherlands, 9 February 1995, § 41, Series A no. 306-A) and might already have been known to a large number of people.
• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 73571/10

  Indeed, as the Court has previously held in the context of Article 10, "the quality of... judicial review of the necessity of the measure is of particular importance in this respect, including the operation of the relevant margin of appreciation" (see Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 108, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 23922/19

  Gawlik gegen Liechtenstein - Whistleblower muss Vorwürfe vor der Anzeige …

  The Court reiterates that the protection of Article 10 extends to the workplace in general (see Heinisch v. Germany, no. 28274/08, § 44, ECHR 2011 (extracts) with further references; Matúz v. Hungary, no. 73571/10, § 26, 21 October 2014; and Langner v. Germany, no. 14464/11, § 39, 17 September 2015).
• BAG, 15.06.2021 - 9 AZR 413/19

  Abmahnung eines Redakteurs - Anzeigepflicht Nebentätigkeit

  Dabei ist ua. zu berücksichtigen, ob eine Veröffentlichung (erst) nach einer vorangegangenen internen Thematisierung erfolgt ist (vgl. EGMR 21. Oktober 2014 - 73571/10 - Rn. 34) .
• EGMR, 17.09.2015 - 14464/11

  Keine Verletzung von Art. 10 EMRK (Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung) durch eine …

  Juli 2012; Matúz ./. Ungarn, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 73571/10, Rdnr. 31, 21.

 
• EGMR, 14.02.2023 - 21884/18

  "Lux-Leaks": Informant Halet zu Unrecht bestraft

  Pour se forger sa conviction, elle peut tenir compte du contenu de la divulgation et relever ainsi, à l'appui de la reconnaissance de la bonne foi de l'auteur de l'alerte, « l'absence d'attaque personnelle gratuite'(Matúz c. Hongrie, no 73571/10, § 46, 21 octobre 2014).
• EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 22636/19

  Oben-Ohne Protest in katholischer Kirche: Bewährungsstrafe gegen Aktivistin …

  Ainsi, l'absence d'un contrôle juridictionnel effectif de la mesure litigieuse peut justifier un constat de violation de l'article 10 (Matúz c. Hongrie, no 73571/10, § 35, 21 octobre 2014, Ergündoan, précité, ibidem).
• EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 48979/10

  ERGÜNDOGAN c. TURQUIE

  Ainsi, l'absence d'un contrôle juridictionnel effectif de la mesure litigieuse peut justifier un constat de violation de l'article 10 (Matúz c. Hongrie, no 73571/10, § 35, 21 octobre 2014).
• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 13003/04

  CATALAN c. ROUMANIE

  De surcroît, la Cour estime que la présente affaire soulève une question distincte de celles relatives à la dénonciation par des employés de conduites ou d'actes illicites constatés sur leur lieu de travail, effectuée sous la forme d'une divulgation d'informations ou de documents dont ils auraient pris connaissance dans l'exercice de leur mission (voir, a contrario, Guja, précité, §§ 72-78 ; voir également Matúz c. Hongrie, no 73571/10, §§ 46-47, 21 octobre 2014, et Aurelian Oprea c. Roumanie, no 12138/08, §§ 61-64 et 69, 19 janvier 2016).
• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 6875/05

  SAYGILI AND KARATAS v. TURKEY

  Thus, the absence of an effective judicial review of the impugned measure may lead to a violation of Article 10 (see Matúz v. Hungary, no. 73571/10, § 35, 21 October 2014, and the references therein).