Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=10.07.2012&Aktenzeichen=43380/10
Timestamp: 2019-08-26 01:54:28+00:00

Document:
EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 43380/10 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2012,27141
EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 43380/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,27141)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.07.2012 - 43380/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,27141)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. Juli 2012 - 43380/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,27141)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,27141) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage) (englisch)
In Übereinstimmung damit hat auch der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte ausdrücklich festgestellt, dass es nicht Aufgabe der Gerichte ist, anstelle der Presse darüber zu urteilen, wie die Berichterstattung in einem gegebenen Fall zu gestalten ist oder wie die Entscheidung zu treffen ist, welche Informationen in einer Berichterstattung enthalten sein müssen oder nicht (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 10. Juli 2014, Axel Springer AG ./. Deutschland Nr. 48311/10, NJW 2015, 1501 - 1505 mit Hinweis auf Urteil vom 10. Juli 2012, Erla Hlynsdottir ./. Island, Nr. 43380/10).
In such circumstances, the Court considers that the limits of acceptable criticism must accordingly be wider than in the case of an ordinary professional (see, mutatis mutandis, Björk Eiðsdóttir, cited above, § 68, and Erla HlynsdÏ?ttir v. Iceland, no. 43380/10, § 65, 10 July 2012).
In the light of the domestic courts" findings, the Court agrees that the limits to acceptable criticism must accordingly be wider in the present case than in the case of an individual who is not well-known (see, inter alia, Erla HlynsdÏ?ttir v. Iceland, no. 43380/10, § 65, 10 July 2012, with further references).
The Court is therefore not convinced that the reasons relied on by the domestic courts were relevant to the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and reputation of Mrs X (see Erla HlynsdÏ?ttir v. Iceland, no. 43380/10, § 62, 10 July 2012, and Bergens Tidende and Others, cited above, § 56).
The Court is thus satisfied that the applicants acted in good faith in accordance with the ethics of journalism and, as regards the second applicant, with the diligence expected of a responsible journalist reporting on a matter of public interest (see Erla HlynsdÏ?ttir v. Iceland, no. 43380/10, § 72, 10 July 2012, and Björk Eiðsdóttir v. Iceland, no. 46443/09, § 81, 10 July 2012).
The limits of acceptable criticism must accordingly be wider than in the case of a private individual (see, inter alia, Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France, cited above, §§ 117 to 123 and Erla HlynsdÏ?ttir v. Iceland, no. 43380/10, § 65, 10 July 2012, with further references).
The Court notes that, despite being, to some extent, provocative, the applicant's impugned statements were not particularly scandalous, shocking or calumnious (see, mutatis mutandis, Erla HlynsdÏ?ttir v. Iceland, no. 43380/10, § 62, 10 July 2012).
In this respect, the applicant referred to the case of Erla HlynsdÏ?ttir v. Iceland, no. 43380/10, 10 July 2012).

References: Art. 10
 Art. 10
 Art. 41
 § 68
 § 65
 § 65
 § 62
 § 56
 § 72
 § 81
 § 65
 § 62