Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BLAJA NEWS SP. Z O.O. v. POLAND

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Blaja News Sp. z o. o. v. Poland

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BLAJA NEWS SP. Z O.O. v. POLAND

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

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 59545/10

  These principles were equally applicable to situations where the administration of justice or judges or prosecutors were criticised by the press (citing Barfod v. Denmark, 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149; Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313; and Lesník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, ECHR 2003-IV).

  The applicant company reiterated that the freedom of the press was strongly protected under Article 10 of the Convention; the press could have recourse to a degree of exaggeration or even provocation (it cited Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 38, Series A no. 313).

• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 59545/10

  This power of appreciation is not, however, unlimited but goes hand in hand with European supervision by the Court, whose task it is to give a final ruling on whether a restriction is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10. In sum, the Court's task in exercising its supervisory function is not to take the place of the national authorities but rather to review under Article 10, in the light of the case as a whole, the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation (see, among many other authorities, Fressoz and Roire, cited above, § 45; Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 86; 7 February 2012; Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos, 40660/08 and 60641/08, § 105, ECHR 2012 ).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 39954/08

  Axel Springer AG in Art. 10 EMRK (Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung) verletzt durch …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 59545/10

  This power of appreciation is not, however, unlimited but goes hand in hand with European supervision by the Court, whose task it is to give a final ruling on whether a restriction is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10. In sum, the Court's task in exercising its supervisory function is not to take the place of the national authorities but rather to review under Article 10, in the light of the case as a whole, the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation (see, among many other authorities, Fressoz and Roire, cited above, § 45; Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 86; 7 February 2012; Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos, 40660/08 and 60641/08, § 105, ECHR 2012 ).

 
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 59545/10

  The test of necessity in a democratic society" requires the Court to determine whether the interference complained of corresponded to a pressing social need, whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, and whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify it are relevant and sufficient (see, among many other authorities, The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 62, Series A no. 30, and Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, § 35, 27 May 2003).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 59545/10

  Furthermore, the Court reiterates that in specific circumstances an exceptional and particularly high amount of damages for libel (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 51, Series A no. 316-B, and Independent News and Media and Independent Newspapers Ireland Limited v. Ireland, no. 55120/00, § 115, ECHR 2005-V (extracts)), may raise an issue under Article 10 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 55120/00

  INDEPENDENT NEWS AND MEDIA AND INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS IRELAND LIMITED v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 59545/10

  Furthermore, the Court reiterates that in specific circumstances an exceptional and particularly high amount of damages for libel (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 51, Series A no. 316-B, and Independent News and Media and Independent Newspapers Ireland Limited v. Ireland, no. 55120/00, § 115, ECHR 2005-V (extracts)), may raise an issue under Article 10 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 59545/10

  Although the press must not overstep certain bounds, in particular in respect of the reputation and rights of others and the need to prevent the disclosure of confidential information, its duty is nevertheless to impart information and ideas on all matters of public interest (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 23, § 31, and De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, 24 February 1997, § 37, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 59545/10

  Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of "public watchdog" in imparting information of serious public concern (see, among other authorities, Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216; Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 34, ECHR 2002-II; and Kaperzynski v. Poland, no. 43206/07, § 56, 3 April 2012).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 59545/10

  The more serious such an allegation, the more solid the factual basis has to be (see Pedersen and Baadsgaard, cited above, § 78; McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, § 84, ECHR 2002-III; and Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 66).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 59545/10

  Hence, 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, for example, Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 27 March 1996, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 78, ECHR 2004-XI; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE
• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 46311/99

  McVICAR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11508/85

  BARFOD c. DANEMARK
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 35105/04

  KANIA AND KITTEL v. POLAND

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

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

  10 EGMR, 26. November 2013, B?‚aja News Sp. z o.o./Polen (CE:ECHR:2013:1126JUD005954510, § 71).

  114 EGMR, 26. November 2013, B?‚aja News Sp. z o.o./Polen (CE:ECHR:2013:1126JUD005954510, § 71).

  132 Vgl. EGMR, 2. Juni 2008, Timpul Info-Magazin und Anghel/Moldau (CE:ECHR:2007:1127JUD004286405, § 39), sowie EGMR, 26. November 2013, B?‚aja News Sp. z o.o./Polen (CE:ECHR:2013:1126JUD005954510, § 71).

• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 346/04

  MUSTAFA ERDOGAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court has stated on many occasions that issues concerning the functioning of the justice system constitute questions of public interest, the debate on which enjoys the protection of Article 10 (see, for example, Blaja News Sp. z o. o. v. Poland, no. 59545/10, § 60, 26 November 2013, and Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 34, Series A no. 313).