Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=20.04.2006&Aktenzeichen=47579/99
Timestamp: 2019-06-25 16:43:41
Document Index: 518042813

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 10', '§ 50', '§ 51', '§ 50', '§ 50', '§ 51', '§ 50', '§ 50', 'in fine', '§ 50', 'in fine', '§ 46', '§ 34', '§ 51', '§ 48', '§ 51', '§ 30', '§ 47']

EGMR, 20.04.2006 - 47579/99 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2006,62799
EGMR, 20.04.2006 - 47579/99 (https://dejure.org/2006,62799)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20.04.2006 - 47579/99 (https://dejure.org/2006,62799)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20. April 2006 - 47579/99 (https://dejure.org/2006,62799)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,62799) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)
Finally, the Court notes that in the instant case the first and second applicants were subjected to a criminal law sanction (for which, see for example Raichinov v. Bulgaria, no. 47579/99, § 50, 20 April 2006, and the case-law cited therein).
However, it is also true that, in holding an interference with freedom of expression to have been disproportionate, the Court has on several occasions placed reliance on the fact that recourse could have been had to measures other than criminal sanctions, notably civil remedies (see, for example, Lehideux and Isorni v. France, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, §§ 51 and 57; Raichinov v. Bulgaria no. 47579/99, § 50, 20 April 2006).
Finally, the Court notes that the criminal proceedings in the present case had their origin in a bill of indictment lodged by the politician himself and not by a public prosecutor (see, a contrario, Raichinov v. Bulgaria, no. 47579/99, § 50, 20 April 2006) and that they resulted in conditional discontinuation of these proceedings.
This is, of course correct, although it is also correct that, in holding an interference with freedom of expression to have been disproportionate, the Court has frequently placed emphasis on the fact that recourse could have been had to means other than criminal sanctions (see, for example, Lehideux and Isorni v. France, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII, §§ 51 and 57; Raichinov v. Bulgaria, no. 47579/99, § 50, 20 April 2006).
It should also be observed that the proceedings were instituted on the initiative of Mr M., not by a State authority (see, by contrast, Raichinov v. Bulgaria, no. 47579/99, § 50 in fine, 20 April 2006).
It should also be observed that the proceedings were instituted on the initiative of Mr M. D., not by a State authority (see, by contrast, Raichinov v. Bulgaria, no. 47579/99, § 50 in fine, 20 April 2006), and that, though they started as criminal, they ended with a mere administrative punishment (see paragraphs 26 and 34 above).
It reiterates that the dominant position which those in power occupy makes it necessary for them to display restraint in resorting to criminal proceedings, particularly where other means are available for replying to the alleged criticisms of their adversaries (see, mutatis mutandis, Castells v. Spain, judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, pp. 23-24, § 46; Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-IV; and Raichinov v. Bulgaria, no. 47579/99, § 51, 20 April 2006).
His intervention shortly after that of I.M. was akin to one "made in the course of an oral exchange and not in writing, after careful consideration" (see Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, no. 39293/98, § 48, 29 February 2000 and Raichinov v. Bulgaria, no. 47579/99, § 51, 20 April 2006).
It must determine whether the interference in issue was "proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued" and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient" (see, among many other authorities, Janowski v. Poland [GC], cited above, § 30, and Raichinov v. Bulgaria, no. 47579/99, § 47, 20 April 2006).
The same was valid in respect of the petition for review (cassation) which existed in Bulgarian law before 1998 (see Raichinov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 47579/99, 1 February 2005).