Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=17.05.2016&Aktenzeichen=42461/13
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 19:24:50+00:00

Document:
42461/13 and 44357/13, § 123, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).
In seiner Rechtsprechung erwähnt er in dieser Hinsicht nur "ein gewisses Maß an [notwendiger] Regulierung ..., um Ausdrucksformen wie direkte oder indirekte Aufrufe zur Gewalt zu verhindern" (EGMR, 17. Mai 2016, Karácsony u. a./Ungarn, CE:ECHR:2016:0517JUD004246113, § 140).
Diese Auslegung entspricht zudem, wie in den vorstehenden Rn. 48 bis 50 dargelegt worden ist, im Allgemeinen der Zielsetzung einer ordnungsrechtlichen Regelung eines Parlaments, deren Rechtmäßigkeit der EGMR anerkannt hat (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 17. Mai 2016, Karácsony u. a./Ungarn, CE:ECHR:2016:0517JUD004246113, § 138 bis 140).
The Court reiterates that democracy constitutes a fundamental element of the "European public order", and that the rights guaranteed under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention are crucial to establishing and maintaining the foundations of an effective and meaningful democracy governed by the rule of law (see Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 141, 17 May 2016, and Uspaskich v. Lithuania, no. 14737/08, § 87, 20 December 2016).
In the light of all the above-mentioned elements, and in particular the sequence and pattern of the events in the present case (see paragraphs 167-68 above), viewed as a whole, the Court finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that the restrictions imposed on the applicant in the fifth and the sixth episodes pursued an ulterior purpose within the meaning of Article 18 of the Convention, namely to suppress that political pluralism which forms part of "effective political democracy" governed by "the rule of law", both being concepts to which the Preamble to the Convention refers (see, mutatis mutandis, ?½danoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, § 98, ECHR 2006-IV, and Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 147, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).
Diese Auslegung entspricht zudem, wie in den vorstehenden Rn. 49 bis 51 dargelegt worden ist, im Allgemeinen der Zielsetzung einer ordnungsrechtlichen Regelung eines Parlaments, deren Rechtmäßigkeit der EGMR anerkannt hat (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 17. Mai 2016, Karácsony u. a./Ungarn, CE:ECHR:2016:0517JUD004246113, § 138 bis 140).
In Karácsony and Others v. Hungary ([GC] (nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, 17 May 2016) the applicants, who also were politicians, were likewise not awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage, although the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 10 in their regard.
I have grounds to think that the reasons were similar to those indicated in my partly dissenting opinions in the two Chamber cases, which preceded that Grand Chamber case (see Karácsony and Others v. Hungary (no. 42461/13) and Szél and Others v. Hungary (no. 44357/13), both delivered on 16 September 2014).
Making reference to the case Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC] (nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 181, ECHR 2016 (extracts)), they asked the Court to decide that the finding of a violation of Article 10 would in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.
Admittedly, the expression of public persons, such as, for example, members of parliament, may also be protected by Article 10 (see Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, 17 May 2016), but, as the cited case shows, that expression must be exercised independently from the performance of official functions.
The Court has found that persons carrying on a professional activity, who are used to having to proceed with a high degree of caution when pursuing their occupation, can on this account be expected to take special care in assessing the risks that such activity entails (see Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, §§ 123-125, ECHR 2016 (extracts), and the cases cited therein).
42461/13 and 44357/13, § 143, ECHR 2016.
There is no doubt that the behaviour of agents in the exercise of their public authority and the possible consequences on the applicant and third parties, are matters of public interest (see Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 49, ECHR 2016, and Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 144, ECHR 2016 (extracts).
MAKRADULI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

References: § 123
 § 140
 § 138
 v. 
 § 141
 v. 
 § 87
 v. 
 § 98
 v. 
 § 147
 § 138
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 181
 v. 
 v. 
 § 143
 v. 
 § 49
 v. 
 § 144
 v.