Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TIMAKOV AND OOO ID RUBEZH v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  TIMAKOV AND OOO ID RUBEZH v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 18498/04

  KHRABROVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 46232/10

  Furthermore, the Court has previously held that given the possible detrimental effects that the lack of a public hearing before the first-instance court could have on the fairness of the proceedings, the absence of publicity could not in any event be remedied by anything other than a complete rehearing before the appellate court (see Khrabrova v. Russia, no. 18498/04, § 52, 2 October 2012).

  By contrast, where the scope of the appeal proceedings is limited, and in particular where the appellate court cannot review the merits of the case, the public hearing before that court cannot remedy the lack of a public hearing before the lower court (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 60, Series A no. 43; Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, § 36, Series A no. 58; Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, § 37, ECHR 2000-XII; Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, § 62, 12 July 2001; Khrabrova v. Russia, no. 18498/04, § 52, 2 October 2012; Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá, cited above, § 192).

• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 46232/10

  However, the Court has held that even when the criminal sanction is the lightest possible, such as a conviction accompanied by a discharge in respect of the criminal sentence and an award of only a "symbolic euro" for damages, this may nonetheless have a dissuasive effect on the exercise of freedom of expression, a factor which must be taken into account in assessing the proportionality of the interference (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 35, Series A no. 298; Brasilier v. France, no. 71343/01, § 43, 11 April 2006; and Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 176, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 46232/10

  By contrast, where the scope of the appeal proceedings is limited, and in particular where the appellate court cannot review the merits of the case, the public hearing before that court cannot remedy the lack of a public hearing before the lower court (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 60, Series A no. 43; Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, § 36, Series A no. 58; Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, § 37, ECHR 2000-XII; Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, § 62, 12 July 2001; Khrabrova v. Russia, no. 18498/04, § 52, 2 October 2012; Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá, cited above, § 192).

 
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 46232/10

  It is true that the Court, when examining whether the interference is "necessary in a democratic society", has not gone so far as to hold that the criminalisation of defamation is in itself a disproportionate interference (see, for example, Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313, a case which involved a conviction for defamation of a judge).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 46232/10

  Furthermore, the press and the media have a pre-eminent role in a State governed by the rule of law as they afford the public one of the best means of discovering and forming an opinion on the ideas and attitudes of their political leaders (see Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 43, Series A no. 236).
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 46232/10

  By contrast, where the scope of the appeal proceedings is limited, and in particular where the appellate court cannot review the merits of the case, the public hearing before that court cannot remedy the lack of a public hearing before the lower court (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 60, Series A no. 43; Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, § 36, Series A no. 58; Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, § 37, ECHR 2000-XII; Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, § 62, 12 July 2001; Khrabrova v. Russia, no. 18498/04, § 52, 2 October 2012; Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá, cited above, § 192).
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 2430/06

  GANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 46232/10

  Given the broad scope of review accorded to appellate courts under Russian law in force at the material time (see Gankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 2430/06 and 3 others, § 40, 31 May 2016), the information before the Court does not indicate that the Regional Court could not rehear the case anew.
• EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 24014/07

  SKUDAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 46232/10

  The Court furthermore notes that each instance of the interference must be seen within the context of the essential role of a free press in ensuring the proper functioning of a democratic society (see, among many other authorities, Skudayeva v. Russia, no. 24014/07, § 30, 5 March 2019).
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 50147/11

  REICHMAN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 46232/10

  In Reichman v. France (no. 50147/11, § 73, 12 July 2016) the Court, referring to its judgment in Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC][3], held that the very pronouncement of a criminal conviction was "one of the most serious forms of interference with the right to freedom of expression, having regard to the existence of other means of intervention and rebuttal, particularly through civil remedies".
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 45083/06

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND MILASHINA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 46232/10

  The Court will examine the issue of whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society" in the light of the relevant principles developed in its case-law that were summarised, in particular, in Novaya Gazeta and Milashina v. Russia (no. 45083/06, §§ 55-57, 3 October 2017).
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 7972/09

  FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA (No. 3)

• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 2840/10

  OOO MEMO v. RUSSIA

  46232/10 and 74770/10, § 71, 8 September 2020).
• EGMR, 12.07.2023 - 1828/06

  G.I.E.M. S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Tel est a fortiori le cas lorsque les questions soulevées par la cause dépassent la personne et les intérêts du requérant (Capital Bank AD c. Bulgarie, no 49429/99, § 78, CEDH 2005 XII (extraits), Uniya OOO et Belcourt Trading Company c. Russie, nos 4437/03 et 13290/03, 19 juin 2014, Aviakompaniya A.T.I., ZAT c. Ukraine, no 1006/07, 5 octobre 2017, Euromak Metal Doo c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine, no 68039/14, 14 juin 2018, et Timakov et OOO ID Rubezh c. Russie, nos 46232/10 et 74770/10, 8 septembre 2020).
• EGMR, 10.01.2023 - 77086/14

  SHENDEROVICH v. RUSSIA

  Moreover, they did not consider the applicant's financial situation at all when making a very substantial award to be paid to the claimant (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 49, Series A no. 316-B, and Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, § 70, 8 September 2020).

 
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 74389/10

  PRONYAKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Moreover, they did not consider the defendants" financial situation at all when making awards to be paid to the claimants (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 49, Series A no. 316-B, and Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 et 74770/10, § 70, 8 September 2020).
• EGMR - 4775/20 (anhängig)

  TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL - R v. RUSSIA

  Has there been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the decision of the court at first level of jurisdiction to hear the case brought by Mr L. in camera (see Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, §§ 74-83, 8 September 2020)?.
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 11971/10

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Moreover, they did not consider the defendants" financial situation at all when making awards to be paid to the claimant (see Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 et 74770/10, § 70, 8 September 2020).
• EGMR, 24.05.2022 - 16503/14

  ZAO INFORMATSIONNOYE AGENTSTVO ROSBALT v. RUSSIA

  They thus exceeded the margin of appreciation afforded to them and failed to demonstrate that there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the interference in question and the legitimate aim pursued (see, with further references, Tolmachev v. Russia, no. 42182/11, § 56, 2 June 2020, and Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 et 74770/10, § 71, 8 September 2020).