Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,56027
EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03 (https://dejure.org/2011,56027)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19.04.2011 - 22385/03 (https://dejure.org/2011,56027)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19. April 2011 - 22385/03 (https://dejure.org/2011,56027)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,56027) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (34)Neu Zitiert selbst (38)

  • EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

    CASTELLS v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03
    It has found violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 10 in cases where defendants in criminal libel proceedings have not been allowed to avail themselves of that defence (see Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, §§ 47 and 48, Series A no. 236; Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 66, ECHR 2002-V; and Folea v. Romania, no. 34434/02, §§ 30-32, 14 October 2008; see also, in relation to civil defamation proceedings, Busuioc v. Moldova, no. 61513/00, § 88, 21 December 2004; Savitchi v. Moldova, no. 11039/02, § 59, 11 October 2005; and Flux (no. 4), cited above, § 38), and has held against applicants a lack of effort to make out that defence (see CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re, cited above, §§ 104-08, and Mahmudov and Agazade v. Azerbaijan, no. 35877/04, § 44, 18 December 2008).

    For its part, the Court considers that, in view of the overall thrust of the article (see Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 48 in limine, Series A no. 236; Perna v. Italy [GC], no. 48898/99, § 47 in limine, ECHR 2003-V; and Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel v. Moldova, no. 42864/05, § 35, 27 November 2007), those elements could be regarded as equally relevant for the assessment of whether or not the applicant had acted as a responsible journalist.

  • EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 20953/06

    WOLEK, KASPROW AND LESKI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03
    The allegation in the instant case was very serious (compare with CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re, §§ 100 and 102, and Pedersen and Baadsgaard, § 80, both cited above, as well as with Wolek and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 20953/06, 21 October 2008), and thus called for thorough research on the part of the applicant.
  • EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

    McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03
    However, it is not the Court's role to consider in the abstract whether national law - and, a fortiori, an individual rule of that law - conforms to the Convention (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 153, Series A no. 324; Pham Hoang v. France, 25 September 1992, § 33, Series A no. 243; Etxeberria and Others v. Spain, nos. 35579/03, 35613/03, 35626/03 and 35634/03, § 81, 30 June 2009; and Romanenko and Others v. Russia, no. 11751/03, § 39, 8 October 2009).
     
  • EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

    BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03
    By reason of the "duties and responsibilities" inherent in the exercise of the freedom of expression, the safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see, among other authorities, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III).
  • EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

    LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03
    The Court has already found that the States cannot be regarded as having overstepped that margin because they resorted to criminal measures as a response to defamation (see Radio France and Others, cited above, § 40; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-XI; Dlugolecki v. Poland, no. 23806/03, § 47, 24 February 2009; and Saaristo and Others v. Finland, no. 184/06, § 69 in limine, 12 October 2010).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

    Minelli ./. Schweiz

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03
    It must confine its attention, as far as possible, to the particular circumstances of the case before it (see, among other authorities, Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 41, ECHR 2000-XII, and Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, § 86, ECHR 2003-VIII), and base its examination on the provisions of the domestic law as they were applied to the applicant (see Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 35, Series A no. 62; Vasilescu v. Romania, 22 May 1998, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III; Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria, no. 40825/98, § 90, 31 July 2008; and Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl, cited above).
  • EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

    THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03
    By contrast, the nature of the allegation in the present case - that a number of irregularities in the admission of students to secondary schools were due to bribe-taking - made it very difficult, if not impossible, for the applicant to provide direct corroboration of it (compare with Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 65 in fine, Series A no. 239).
  • EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 38224/03

    Sanoma Uitgevers BV ./. Niederlande

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03
    Such an approach might raise an issue in relation to the principle of protection of journalistic sources, one of the cornerstones of freedom of the press without which sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest (see Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 27 March 1996, § 39, Reports 1996-II; Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 46, ECHR 2003-IV; Financial Times Ltd and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 821/03, §§ 59 and 63, 15 December 2009; and Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 50, ECHR 2010-...).
  • EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

    TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03
    In addition, an award of damages for defamation must bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the injury to reputation suffered (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 49, Series A no. 316-B, and Steel and Morris, cited above, § 96).
  • EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 28070/06

    A. v. NORWAY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03
    Given the nature of the conflicting interests, the States must be given a certain margin of appreciation in striking the appropriate balance between those rights (see A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 66, 9 April 2009, and Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010).
  • EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13191/87

    PHAM HOANG c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 28525/95

    UNABHÄNGIGE INITIATIVE INFORMATIONSVIELFALT v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 25.02.2003 - 51772/99

    ROEMEN AND SCHMIT v. LUXEMBOURG

  • EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 19710/02

    STANDARD VERLAGS GMBH AND KRAWAGNA-PFEIFER v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 78060/01

    PETRINA c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 29372/02

    KARMAN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 184/06

    SAARISTO AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  • EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 42864/05

    TIMPUL INFO-MAGAZIN AND ANGHEL v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

    ALEKSEY PETROV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 35579/03

    ETXEBERRIA BARRENA ARZA NAFARROAKO AUTODETERMINAZIO BILGUNEA ET AIARAKO ET AUTRES …

  • EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 22824/04

    FLUX v. MOLDOVA (No. 6)

  • EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 34434/02

    FOLEA c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 25367/05

    FLUX v. MOLDOVA (No. 7)

  • EKMR, 11.12.1981 - 8803/79

    LINGENS & LEITGEB v. AUSTRIA

  • EKMR, 30.06.1997 - 32218/96

    BARRIL contre la FRANCE

  • EKMR, 01.04.1992 - 16269/90

    TOLLEFSEN v. NORWAY

  • EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

    CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 38432/97

    THOMA v. LUXEMBOURG

  • EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 46311/99

    McVICAR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 510/04

    TØNSBERGS BLAD AS AND HAUKOM v. NORWAY

  • EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

    MAKARENKO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

    RUMYANA IVANOVA v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 25333/06

    EUROPAPRESS HOLDING D.O.O. v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 37406/03

    DYUNDIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 17294/04

    FLUX v. MOLDOVA (No. 4)

  • EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 17550/03

    ALITHIA PUBLISHING COMPANY LTD & CONSTANTINIDES v. CYPRUS

  • EGMR, 21.01.2010 - 2179/08

    RUKAJ c. GRECE

  • EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 28577/05

    THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE SPRL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 931/13

    SATAKUNNAN MARKKINAPÖRSSI OY AND SATAMEDIA OY v. FINLAND

    The standard of journalistic responsibility is subject to the proviso that journalists act in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the tenets of responsible journalism (see Pentikäinen, cited above, § 90; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, cited above, § 65; Fressoz and Roire, cited above, § 54; Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, 19 April 2011, §§ 61 and 63-68; and Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), nos.
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 08.02.2024 - C-633/22

    Real Madrid Club de Fútbol - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle …

    121 EGMR, 19. April 2011, Kasabova/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2011:0419JUD002238503, § 71), und EGMR, 19. April 2011, Bozhkov/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2011:0419JUD000331604, § 55).

    128 EGMR, 19. April 2011, Kasabova/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2011:0419JUD002238503, § 71), und EGMR, 19. April 2011, Bozhkov/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2011:0419JUD000331604, § 55).

    130 Vgl. EGMR, 19. April 2011, Kasabova/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2011:0419JUD002238503, § 71), und EGMR, 19. April 2011, Bozhkov/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2011:0419JUD000331604, § 55).

  • EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 11882/10

    PENTIKÄINEN c. FINLANDE

    The Court also reiterates that the protection afforded by Article 10 of the Convention to journalists is subject to the proviso that they act in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the tenets of responsible journalism (see, mutatis mutandis, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], cited above, § 65; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I; Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, §§ 61 and 63-68, 19 April 2011; and Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), nos.

    These principles have been acknowledged in several Court judgments, particularly Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway ([GC], no. 21980/93, ECHR 1999-III), Fressoz and Roire v. France ([GC], no. 29183/95, ECHR 1999-I), Kasabova v. Bulgaria (no. 22385/03, 19 April 2011), and Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2) (nos. 3002/03 and 23676/03, ECHR 2009).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht