Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=33501/04
Timestamp: 2019-11-18 18:37:52
Document Index: 626431814

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 73', '§ 35', '§ 69', '§ 35', '§ 69', '§ 35', '§ 69', '§ 72', '§ 79', '§ 45', '§ 71', '§ 196', '§ 71', '§ 41']

EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 33501/04, 35258/05, 35618/05, 38608/04 - dejure.org
EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 33501/04, 35258/05, 35618/05, 38608/04
https://dejure.org/2013,1192
EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 33501/04, 35258/05, 35618/05, 38608/04 (https://dejure.org/2013,1192)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22.01.2013 - 33501/04, 35258/05, 35618/05, 38608/04 (https://dejure.org/2013,1192)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22. Januar 2013 - 33501/04, 35258/05, 35618/05, 38608/04 (https://dejure.org/2013,1192)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,1192) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
OOO IVPRESS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)
Contrary to the Government's assertion, which is not borne out by the text of the judgments, neither the District Court nor the Town Court made any genuine attempt to distinguish between statements of fact and value judgments; rather, they reprinted the impugned extracts of the article in their entirety, without subjecting them to meaningful scrutiny (see OOO Ivpress and Others v. Russia, nos. 33501/04, 38608/04, 35258/05 and 35618/05, § 73, 22 January 2013).
The Court considers the following elements relevant to the examination of the particular circumstances of the present case: the position of the applicants, the position of the people against whom the criticism was directed, the subject matter of the publications and the words used in the publications, the domestic courts" interpretation of the contested statements, and the penalty imposed on the applicants (see Krasulya v. Russia, no. 12365/03, § 35, 22 February 2007, and OOO Ivpress and Others v. Russia, nos. 33501/04 and 3 others, § 69, 22 January 2013).
The Court considers the following elements to be relevant for the examination of the particular circumstances of the present case: the position of the applicant company, the position of the person against whom the criticism was directed, the subject matter of the publication, the domestic courts" interpretation of the contested statement, the words used by the applicant company and the penalty imposed (see Krasulya, cited above, § 35, and OOO Ivpress and Others v. Russia, nos. 33501/04 and 3 others, § 69, 22 January 2013).
The Court considers the following elements to be relevant for the examination of the particular circumstances of each interference in the present case: the applicant's position, the position of the persons against whom the criticism was directed, the subject matter of the publications, the domestic courts" interpretation of the contested statements, the words used in the publications, and the penalties imposed (see Krasulya v. Russia, no. 12365/03, § 35, 22 February 2007, and OOO Ivpress and Others v. Russia, nos. 33501/04 and 3 others, § 69, 22 January 2013).
EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 9406/05
KUNITSYNA v. RUSSIA
33501/04, 38608/04, 35258/05 and 35618/05, § 72, 22 January 2013).
EGMR - 62670/12 (anhängig)
Were the standards used by the Russian courts to examine the defamation claims against the applicant in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention (see OOO Ivpress and Others v. Russia, nos. 33501/04, 38608/04, 35258/05 and 35618/05, § 79, 22 January 2013)? In particular:.
EGMR - 32058/13 (anhängig)
Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? Did the domestic courts applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10? (see, among others, Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 45, 4 April 2013, and OOO Ivpress and Others v. Russia, nos. 33501/04, 38608/04, 35258/05 and 35618/05, §§ 71, 74 et passim, 22 January 2013)?.
EGMR - 3402/15 (anhängig)
STOLBUNOV v. RUSSIA
Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention as regards the finding of the applicant's liability in defamation? In particular, did the national courts carry out a proper analysis of allegedly defamatory statements, arguments, and evidence put forward by the parties, and did they apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 (see Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, § 196, 15 October 2015, and, in the Russian context, OOO Ivpress and Others v. Russia, nos. 33501/04, 38608/04, 35258/05 and 35618/05, §§ 71-79, 22 January 2013)? Was the amount of compensation to be paid by the applicant proportionate? (see Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, § 41-42, 27 May 2003).