Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=12.07.2016&Aktenzeichen=33502/07
Timestamp: 2019-08-18 22:25:50+00:00

Document:
EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 33502/07, 30599/10, 8241/11 - dejure.org
EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 33502/07, 30599/10, 8241/11
https://dejure.org/2016,19357
EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 33502/07, 30599/10, 8241/11 (https://dejure.org/2016,19357)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12.07.2016 - 33502/07, 30599/10, 8241/11 (https://dejure.org/2016,19357)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12. Juli 2016 - 33502/07, 30599/10, 8241/11 (https://dejure.org/2016,19357)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,19357) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
MARINOVA v. BULGARIA and 3 other applications
Art. 4, Art. 4 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2 MRK
It must therefore be regarded as a direct result of the violation found (compare and contrast Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, §§ 64-66, 9 January 2007, and, more recently, Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 33502/07, 30599/10, 8241/11 and 61863/11, § 119, 12 July 2016).
In exercising its supervisory function, the Court must look at the interference complained of in the light of the case as a whole, including the status of the applicant and that of the plaintiff in the domestic proceedings, the content of the critical comments held against the applicant, as well as the context and the manner in which they were made public (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 35, ECHR 2001-II; Siredzhuk, cited above, § 81; and, mutatis mutandis, Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 33502/07, 30599/10, 8241/11 and 61863/11, § 86, 12 July 2016).
They had referred in their request to the Court's judgment in the case of Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 33502/07, 30599/10, 8241/11 and 61863/11, 12 July 2016).
As for the enforcement fee, no evidence has been adduced to the Court to show that it was a direct result of the breach of Article 10 of the Convention (cf. Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, §§ 64-66, 9 January 2007, and, more recently, Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 33502/07, 30599/10, 8241/11 and 61863/11, § 119, 12 July 2016).
Dans un certain nombre d'affaires concernant des plaintes critiquant le travail de fonctionnaires, adressées à d'autres organes publics, et qui ont été sanctionnées par la suite par des condamnations pour diffamation, la Cour a estimé que la protection offerte par l'article 10 devait être analysée non pas au regard de la liberté de la presse ou de la discussion publique de questions d'intérêt général, mais par rapport au droit du requérant de se plaindre des agissements irréguliers d'un fonctionnaire devant l'organe compétent pour examiner de telles doléances (voir notamment Zakharov c. Russie, no 14881/03, § 23, 5 octobre 2006 ; Kazakov c. Russie, no 1758/02, § 26, 18 décembre 2008 ; Bezymyannyy c. Russie, no 10941/03, § 41, 8 avril 2010 ; Siryk c. Ukraine, no 6428/07, § 42, 31 mars 2011 ; Marinova et autres c. Bulgarie, nos 33502/07, 30599/10, 8241/11 et 61863/11, §§ 86-90, 12 juillet 2016).

References: Art. 4
 Art. 4
 Art. 2
 § 119
 § 35
 § 81
 § 86
 § 119
 l'article 10
 § 23
 § 26
 § 41
 § 42