Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=25968/02
Timestamp: 2019-11-12 23:36:36
Document Index: 770003273

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 17', '§ 19', '§ 11', '§ 12', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 38', '§ 47', '§ 36', '§ 50', '§ 52', '§ 44', '§ 46', '§ 24', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 10']

Rechtsprechung: 25968/02 - dejure.org
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 13.05.2004
https://dejure.org/2007,55036
EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 25968/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,55036)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 31.07.2007 - 25968/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,55036)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 31. Juli 2007 - 25968/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,55036)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,55036) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
EGMR, 13.05.2004 - 25968/02
In their observations of 22 December 2010 on the admissibility and merits, the Government distinguished the present case from the cases of Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia (no. 25968/02, 31 July 2007); Krasulya v. Russia (no. 12365/03, 22 February 2007); Karman v. Russia (no. 29372/02, 14 December 2006); and Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 33333/04, 11 February 2010), giving the following reasons.
It appears that this ruling was intended to harmonise the divergent case-law of the Russian courts on that matter (see, for instance, the findings made by Russian courts, as presented in the cases of Filatenko v. Russia, no. 73219/01, § 17, 6 December 2007; Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 19, 31 July 2007; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, §§ 11 and 13, 5 October 2006; Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, § 12, 21 July 2005; and Godlevskiy v. Russia (dec.), no. 14888/03, 9 December 2004).
The Court has on many occasions pinpointed the structural deficiency of the Russian law on defamation, as interpreted and applied at the relevant time, which made no distinction between value judgments and statements of fact, referring uniformly to "information" ("svedeniya"), and proceeded on the assumption that any such "information" was susceptible to proof in civil proceedings (see Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, § 29, 21 July 2005; Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 29, 5 October 2006; Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 38, 14 December 2006; Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 47, 31 July 2007; Fedchenko v. Russia, no. 33333/04, §§ 36-41, 11 February 2010; Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, §§ 50-52, 14 October 2010; Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia, no. 27570/03, § 52, 21 December 2010; and OOO Ivpress and Others v. Russia, nos.
EGMR - 11971/10 (anhängig)
NOVAYA GAZETA AND IZMAYLOV v. RUSSIA
Has there been a violation of the applicants" right to freedom of expression on account of the defamation proceedings brought against them by Mr K.? In particular, did the impugned articles contain statements capable of making the ordinary reader feel that Mr K. was targeted by any criticism? Was there an objective link between the impugned statements and the person suing in defamation (see Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 44, 31 July 2007)? Did the domestic courts give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the alleged interference with the applicants" right to freedom of expression? Did they apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention? Did they base themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v. Russia, no. 39748/05, § 46, 25 April 2017, and Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, § 24, 26 January 2017)?.
https://dejure.org/2004,44006
EGMR, 13.05.2004 - 25968/02 (https://dejure.org/2004,44006)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13.05.2004 - 25968/02 (https://dejure.org/2004,44006)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13. Mai 2004 - 25968/02 (https://dejure.org/2004,44006)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,44006) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 6, Art. 10 MRK