Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=24.11.2009&Aktenzeichen=25367/05
Timestamp: 2019-07-15 23:06:49+00:00

Document:
EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 25367/05 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2009,69431
EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 25367/05 (https://dejure.org/2009,69431)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.11.2009 - 25367/05 (https://dejure.org/2009,69431)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. November 2009 - 25367/05 (https://dejure.org/2009,69431)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,69431) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
30 - EGMR, Urteil Flux gegen Moldawien vom 24. November 2009, Beschwerde Nr. 25367/05, § 39.
Indeed, in situations where on the one hand a statement of fact is made and insufficient evidence is adduced to prove it, and on the other the journalist is discussing an issue of genuine public interest, verifying whether the journalist has acted professionally and in good faith becomes paramount (see Flux v. Moldova (no. 7), no. 25367/05, § 41, 24 November 2009).
Indeed, in situations where on the one hand a statement of fact is made and insufficient evidence is adduced to prove it, and on the other the journalist is discussing an issue of genuine public interest, verifying whether the journalist has acted professionally and in good faith becomes paramount (see Flux v. Moldova (no. 7), no. 25367/05, § 41, 24 November 2009; Kasabova, cited above, § 63 in fine; Ziembinski v. Poland, no. 46712/06, § 53, 24 July 2012; Yordanova and Toshev, cited above, § 55; and Braun v. Poland, no. 30162/10, § 50, 4 November 2014, not final).
In situations where on the one hand a statement of fact is made and insufficient evidence is adduced to prove it, and on the other hand the journalist is discussing an issue of genuine public interest, verifying whether the journalist has acted professionally and in good faith becomes paramount (see Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, § 63, 19 April 2011, and Flux v. Moldova (no. 7), no. 25367/05, § 41, 24 November 2009).
La Cour rappelle que dans des situations où un journaliste avance des faits sans preuves suffisantes mais où son propos s'inscrit, d'un autre côté, dans la discussion d'un véritable problème d'intérêt général, il est primordial d'examiner si le journaliste s'est comporté de manière professionnelle et s'il était de bonne foi (Flux c. Moldova (no7), no 25367/05, § 41, 24 novembre 2009, Yordanova et Toshev c. Bulgarie, no 5126/05, § 48, 2 octobre 2012, Stankiewicz c. Pologne, no 48723/07, § 69, 14 octobre 2014).
In situations where, on the one hand, a statement of fact is made and insufficient evidence is adduced to prove it, and, on the other, the journalist is discussing an issue of genuine public interest, verifying whether the journalist has acted professionally and in good faith becomes paramount (see, Flux v. Moldova (no. 7), no. 25367/05, § 41, 24 November 2009).
The Court recalls that in situations where on the one hand a statement of fact is made and insufficient evidence is adduced to prove it, and on the other the journalist is discussing an issue of genuine public interest, verifying whether the journalist has acted professionally and in good faith becomes paramount (see Flux v. Moldova (no. 7), no. 25367/05, § 41, 24 November 2009; Kasabova, cited above, § 63 in fine; Ziembinski v. Poland, no. 46712/06, § 53, 24 July 2012; and Yordanova and Toshev, cited above, § 55).
In situations where on the one hand a statement of fact is made and insufficient evidence is adduced to prove it, and on the other hand the journalist is discussing an issue of genuine public interest, verifying whether the journalist has acted professionally and in good faith becomes paramount (see Flux v. Moldova (no. 7), no. 25367/05, § 41, 24 November 2009 and Tavares de Almeida Fernandes and Almeida Fernandes v. Portugal, no. 31566/13, § 56, 17 January 2017).

References: § 39
 § 41
 § 41
 § 63
in fine
 § 53
 § 55
 § 50
 § 63
 § 41
 § 41
 § 48
 § 69
 § 41
 § 41
 § 63
in fine
 § 53
 § 55
 § 41
 § 56