Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 39315/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,55355
EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 39315/06 (https://dejure.org/2012,55355)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22.11.2012 - 39315/06 (https://dejure.org/2012,55355)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22. November 2012 - 39315/06 (https://dejure.org/2012,55355)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,55355) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    TELEGRAAF MEDIA NEDERLAND LANDELIJKE MEDIA B.V. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) Violation of Article 10 - Freedom ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    TELEGRAAF MEDIA NEDERLAND LANDELIJKE MEDIA B.V. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

    Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35 MRK
    [DEU] Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) Violation of Article 10 - ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Besprechungen u.ä.

  • lehofer.at (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

    Telegraaf Media - geheimdienstliche Überwachung von Journalisten und Schutz journalistischer Quellen

Sonstiges (2)

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (21)

  • EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

    OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 39315/06
    Withdrawing the documents from circulation could therefore no longer prevent the information which they contained - including the code names and other information identifying AIVD informants - from falling into the wrong hands (see The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 2), 26 November 1991, § 54, Series A no. 217; Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 68, Series A no. 216; and Vereniging Weekblad Bluf! v. the Netherlands, 9 February 1995, § 45, Series A no. 306-A).

    The present case is distinguishable from earlier cases like The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 2), 26 November 1991, Series A no. 217; Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216; and Vereniging Weekblad Bluf!, cited above.

  • EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 38224/03

    Sanoma Uitgevers BV ./. Niederlande

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 39315/06
    However, that is not decisive (see Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 66, 14 September 2010).

    Closer to the facts of the present case, the Court has consistently accepted, in a phrase repeated many times since its first use in Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 27 March 1996, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 II, that an order leading to the disclosure of a journalistic source may be compatible with Article 10 if - but only if - it is justified by an "overriding requirement in the public interest" (see Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 46, ECHR 2003 IV; Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no. 33400/96, § 91, 15 July 2003; Tillack v. Belgium, no. 20477/05, § 53, 27 November 2007; Voskuil v. the Netherlands, no. 64752/01, § 65, 22 November 2007; Financial Times Ltd and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 821/03, § 59, 15 December 2009; and Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 51, 14 September 2010.

  • EGMR, 15.07.2003 - 33400/96

    ERNST ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 39315/06
    As in Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IV; Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no. 33400/96, § 100, 15 July 2003; Tillack v. Belgium, no. 20477/05, § 64, 27 November 2007; and Sanoma, loc.

    Closer to the facts of the present case, the Court has consistently accepted, in a phrase repeated many times since its first use in Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 27 March 1996, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 II, that an order leading to the disclosure of a journalistic source may be compatible with Article 10 if - but only if - it is justified by an "overriding requirement in the public interest" (see Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 46, ECHR 2003 IV; Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no. 33400/96, § 91, 15 July 2003; Tillack v. Belgium, no. 20477/05, § 53, 27 November 2007; Voskuil v. the Netherlands, no. 64752/01, § 65, 22 November 2007; Financial Times Ltd and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 821/03, § 59, 15 December 2009; and Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 51, 14 September 2010.

  • EGMR, 25.02.2003 - 51772/99

    ROEMEN AND SCHMIT v. LUXEMBOURG

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 39315/06
    As in Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IV; Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no. 33400/96, § 100, 15 July 2003; Tillack v. Belgium, no. 20477/05, § 64, 27 November 2007; and Sanoma, loc.

    Closer to the facts of the present case, the Court has consistently accepted, in a phrase repeated many times since its first use in Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 27 March 1996, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 II, that an order leading to the disclosure of a journalistic source may be compatible with Article 10 if - but only if - it is justified by an "overriding requirement in the public interest" (see Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 46, ECHR 2003 IV; Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no. 33400/96, § 91, 15 July 2003; Tillack v. Belgium, no. 20477/05, § 53, 27 November 2007; Voskuil v. the Netherlands, no. 64752/01, § 65, 22 November 2007; Financial Times Ltd and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 821/03, § 59, 15 December 2009; and Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 51, 14 September 2010.

  • EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 20477/05

    TILLACK v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 39315/06
    As in Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IV; Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no. 33400/96, § 100, 15 July 2003; Tillack v. Belgium, no. 20477/05, § 64, 27 November 2007; and Sanoma, loc.

    Closer to the facts of the present case, the Court has consistently accepted, in a phrase repeated many times since its first use in Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 27 March 1996, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 II, that an order leading to the disclosure of a journalistic source may be compatible with Article 10 if - but only if - it is justified by an "overriding requirement in the public interest" (see Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 46, ECHR 2003 IV; Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no. 33400/96, § 91, 15 July 2003; Tillack v. Belgium, no. 20477/05, § 53, 27 November 2007; Voskuil v. the Netherlands, no. 64752/01, § 65, 22 November 2007; Financial Times Ltd and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 821/03, § 59, 15 December 2009; and Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 51, 14 September 2010.

  • EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87

    OTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 39315/06
    The Court has held that Article 10 cannot be interpreted as prohibiting the forfeiture in the public interest of items whose use has lawfully been adjudged illicit (see, mutatis mutandis, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 63, Series A no. 24, and Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 20 September 1994, § 57, Series A no. 295-A).
  • EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

    BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 39315/06
    Article 10 protects a journalist's right - and duty - to impart information on matters of public interest provided that he is acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III; and Financial Times Ltd. and Others, cited above, § 62).
  • EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

    FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 39315/06
    Article 10 protects a journalist's right - and duty - to impart information on matters of public interest provided that he is acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III; and Financial Times Ltd. and Others, cited above, § 62).
  • EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12945/87

    HADJIANASTASSIOU v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 39315/06
    In our opinion, this duty weighs even more heavily in the case of an official belonging to a service like the AIVD, which by its very nature has to guard the secrecy of its information (see, mutatis mutandis, Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, 16 December 1992, § 46, Series A no. 252; Vereniging Weekblad Bluf! v. the Netherlands, 9 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 306 A; and Pasko v. Russia, no. 69519/01, § 86, 22 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1985 - 8734/79

    Barthold ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 39315/06
    Since 1985 the Court has frequently made mention of the task of the press as purveyor of information and "public watchdog" (see, among many other authorities, Barthold v. Germany, 25 March 1985, § 58, Series A no. 90; Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 44, Series A no. 103; Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 63, Series A no. 239; CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre, cited above, § 93; Voskuil, cited above, § 64; and Financial Times Ltd. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 821/03, § 59, 15 December 2009).
  • EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

    LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

    HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

    THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  • EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 58243/00

    LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

    Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  • EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

    SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  • EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 54934/00

    Menschenrechte: Verletzung der Privatsphäre und des Briefgeheimnisses durch das

  • EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

    CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

    SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 21132/05

    TV Vest AS & Rogaland Pensjonistparti ./. Norwegen

  • EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05

    KENNEDY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 19.07.2016 - C-203/15

    Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Saugmandsgaard Øe kann eine generelle

    In Bezug auf die Informationsquellen von Journalisten hat der EGMR betont, dass die vorherige Genehmigung einer unabhängigen Stelle erforderlich ist, da eine nachträgliche Kontrolle die Vertraulichkeit der Quellen nicht wiederherstellen kann, vgl. EGMR vom 22 November 2012, Telegraaf Media Nederland Landelijke Media B.V. u. a./Niederlande (CE:ECHR:2012:1122JUD003931506, § 101), und EGMR vom 12. Januar 2016, Szabó und Vissy/Ungarn (CE:ECHR:2016:0112JUD003713814, § 77).
  • EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 65542/12

    STICHTING MOTHERS OF SREBRENICA AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

    De l'avis de la Cour, pour qu'un requérant puisse se prétendre victime de la violation d'un ou de plusieurs des droits et libertés garantis par la Convention et ses Protocoles, il doit exister un lien suffisamment direct entre le requérant et le préjudice qu'il estime avoir subi du fait de la violation alléguée (voir, entre autres, Association des amis de Saint-Raphaël et de Fréjus c. France (déc.), no 45053/98, 29 février 2000, s'agissant de l'association requérante, et Uitgeversmaatschappij De Telegraaf B.V. et autres c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 39315/06, 18 mai 2010, s'agissant des requérants suivants: Nederlandse Vereniging van Journalisten (Association néerlandaise des journalistes) et Nederlands Genootschap van Hoofdredacteuren (société néerlandaise des rédacteurs en chef).
  • EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 49085/07

    GÖRMÜS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

    Selon la conception de la Cour, la « source'journalistique désigne « toute personne qui fournit des informations à un journaliste'; par ailleurs, la Cour entend les termes « information identifiant une source'comme visant, dans la mesure où elle risque de conduire à identifier une source, tant « les circonstances concrètes de l'obtention d'informations par un journaliste auprès d'une source'que « la partie non publiée de l'information fournie par une source à un journaliste'(Telegraaf Media Nederland Landelijke Media B.V. et autres c. Pays-Bas, no 39315/06, § 86, 22 novembre 2012).
  • EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 21272/12

    BECKER v. NORWAY

    At the same time the Court recalls that in cases where a source was clearly acting in bad faith with a harmful purpose, it held that the conduct of the source can never be decisive in determining whether a disclosure order ought to be made but will merely operate as one, albeit important, factor to be taken into account in the balancing exercise under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (see, paragraphs 67-68 above quoting Financial Times Ltd and Others, cited above, §§ 63 and 66, and also Telegraaf Media Nederland Landelijke Media B.V. and Others v. The Netherlands, no. 39315/06, § 128, 22 November 2012).
  • EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 26419/10

    SAINT-PAUL LUXEMBOURG S.A. c. LUXEMBOURG

    Suivant la conception de la Cour, la « source'journalistique désigne « toute personne qui fournit des informations à un journaliste'; par ailleurs, la Cour entend le terme « information identifiant une source'comme visant, dans la mesure où elle risque de conduire à identifier une source, tant « les circonstances concrètes de l'obtention d'informations par un journaliste auprès d'une source'que « la partie non publiée de l'information fournie par une source à un journaliste'(Telegraaf Media Nederland Landelijke Media B.V. et autres c. Pays-Bas, no 39315/06, § 86, 22 novembre 2012).
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