Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FREITAS RANGEL v. PORTUGAL

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  FREITAS RANGEL v. PORTUGAL

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

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 78873/13

  Furthermore, the Court has found that the most careful scrutiny on its part is called for when, as in the present case, the measures taken or sanctions imposed by the national authority are capable of discouraging the participation of the press in debates over matters of legitimate public concern (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 64, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 78873/13

  However, for practical reasons, Mr Freitas Rangel will continue to be referred as "the applicant" in this judgment (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 23954/10

  Zur Meinungsfreiheit in Ungarn

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 78873/13

  The Court also notes that the protection of the reputation of a legal entity does not have the same strength as the protection of the reputation or rights of individuals (compare Uj v. Hungary, no. 23954/10, § 22, 19 July 2011, and Kharlamov v. Russia, no. 27447/07, § 29, 8 October 2015).

 
• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 27447/07

  KHARLAMOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 78873/13

  The Court also notes that the protection of the reputation of a legal entity does not have the same strength as the protection of the reputation or rights of individuals (compare Uj v. Hungary, no. 23954/10, § 22, 19 July 2011, and Kharlamov v. Russia, no. 27447/07, § 29, 8 October 2015).
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 3316/04

  BOZHKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 78873/13

  The Court also considers that sanctions of this severity may have a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of expression of persons called upon to participate in discussions of matters of general public interest and concerning institutions (compare Público - Comunicação Social, S.A. and Others v. Portugal, no. 39324/07, § 55, 7 December 2010; Bozhkov v. Bulgaria, no. 3316/04, § 55, 19 April 2011; Pinto Pinheiro Marques v. Portugal, no. 26671/09, § 46, 22 January 2015; Medipress-Sociedade Jornalística, Lda v. Portugal, no. 55442/12, § 45, 30 August 2016; and Pais Pires de Lima, cited above, §§ 66-67).
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 31566/13

  TAVARES DE ALMEIDA FERNANDES AND ALMEIDA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 78873/13

  The Court considers that an applicant is, in principle, entitled to recover any sums that he or she has paid in fines and costs, by reason of their direct link with the national court judgments which the Court found to be in breach of his or her right to freedom of expression (see Tavares de Almeida Fernandes and Almeida Fernandes v. Portugal, no. 31566/13, § 86, 17 January 2017).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 15449/09

  MARGULEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 78873/13

  However, in this case, it is prepared to assume that this aim can be relied on (see, mutatis mutandis, Margulev v. Russia, no. 15449/09, § 45, 8 October 2019, and the references therein).
• EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 68317/13

  MILJEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 78873/13

  In order to distinguish between a factual allegation and a value judgment, it is necessary to take account of the circumstances of the case and the general tone of the remarks, bearing in mind that assertions about matters of public interest may, on that basis, constitute value judgments rather than statements of fact (see Morice, cited above, § 126, with further references, and Miljevic v. Croatia, no. 68317/13, § 56, 25 June 2020).
• EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 70465/12

  PAIS PIRES DE LIMA c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 78873/13

  Having regard to the close family ties and the heirs' legitimate interest in pursuing the application, the Court accepts that the deceased applicant's heirs may pursue the application in his stead (see, amongst many other authorities, Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII, and Pais Pires de Lima v. Portugal, no. 70465/12, § 39, 12 February 2019).
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 11/04

  VOTTO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 78873/13

  11/04/2022.

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 08.02.2024 - C-633/22

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

  84 Vgl. unlängst EGMR, 11. Januar 2022, Freitas Rangel/Portugal (CE:ECHR:2022:0111JUD007887313, § 53).
• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 47238/19

  ALMEIDA ARROJA v. PORTUGAL

  DOMESTIC PRACTICE 32. Domestic case-law has clarified that Article 187 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 30 above) is only applicable to the dissemination of false facts and not to value judgments (see the domestic judgments cited in Pinto Pinheiro Marques v. Portugal, no. 26671/09, § 22, 22 January 2015; see also Freitas Rangel v. Portugal, no. 78873/13, § 37, 11 January 2022).

  However, in this case, it is prepared to assume that this aim can be relied on (see, Freitas Rangel v. Portugal, no. 78873/13, § 48, 11 January 2022 and the reference therein).

• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 2840/10

  OOO MEMO v. RUSSIA

  In addition to the various cases cited in the present judgment and those where the interference served a more specific aim of "maintaining the authority... of the judiciary" (see, most recently, Freitas Rangel v. Portugal, no. 78873/13, § 48, 11 January 2022, not yet final), the Court has already accepted the legitimate aim of "the protection of the reputation... of others" in respect of such public institutions as the police (Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, § 60, 28 August 2018) or the prosecutor's office (Goryaynova v. Ukraine, no. 41752/09, § 56, 8 October 2020).
• EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 20755/08

  AZADLIQ AND ZAYIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In order to distinguish between a factual allegation and a value judgment, it is necessary to take account of the circumstances of the case and the general tone of the remarks, bearing in mind that assertions about matters of public interest may, on that basis, constitute value judgments rather than statements of fact (see Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 126, ECHR 2015, and Freitas Rangel v. Portugal, no. 78873/13, § 51, 11 January 2022).
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 58106/15

  WELSH AND SILVA CANHA v. PORTUGAL

  While the wording of the two articles may be seen as exaggerated and thus unfortunate, the articles may well be interpreted as an illustration of a broader critique regarding the inappropriate funding of that specific political party in Madeira, which was a subject of public interest (see paragraph 17 above; compare Freitas Rangel v. Portugal, no. 78873/13, §§ 57-58, 11 January 2022).