Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=11.12.2008&Aktenzeichen=21132/05
Timestamp: 2019-05-25 14:37:39
Document Index: 441854816

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 10', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 3', 'art. 10', 'Art. 10', 'Art 10', '§ 62', '§ 78', '§ 67', '§ 36', '§ 88', '§ 63', '§ 58', '§ 80', '§ 62']

EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 21132/05 - dejure.org
EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 21132/05
https://dejure.org/2008,28753
EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 21132/05 (https://dejure.org/2008,28753)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11.12.2008 - 21132/05 (https://dejure.org/2008,28753)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11. Dezember 2008 - 21132/05 (https://dejure.org/2008,28753)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,28753) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
TV VEST AS & ROGALAND PENSJONISTPARTI c. NORVEGE
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
Violation de l'art. 10 Satisfaction équitable rejetée (tardiveté) (französisch)
Violation of Art. 10 Just satisfaction dismissed (out of time) (englisch)
TV Vest und Rogaland Pensjonistparti gegen Norwegen
Gänzliches Verbot politischer Werbung im Fernsehen verstößt gegen Art 10 EMRK
EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 21132/05
EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 21132/05
NVwZ 2010, 241
The Court accepts that this corresponds to the legitimate aim of protecting the "rights of others" to which the second paragraph of Article 10 refers (VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, § 62, ECHR 2001-VI; and TV Vest AS and Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway, no. 21132/05, § 78, ECHR 2008 (extracts)).
Secondly, as in the VgT and TV Vest cases (VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, ECHR 2001 VI; and TV Vest AS and Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway, no. 21132/05, 11 December 2008), the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression stemmed not from a decision or exercise of discretion of a court or executive authority but from a statutory prohibition applicable to all forms of political advertising.
It follows, as the judgment points out (paragraph 109), that the more convincing the general justifications for the general measure are, the less importance the Court will attach to its impact in the particular case under examination (see, for example, Murphy, cited above, and TV Vest AS and Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway, no. 21132/05, ECHR 2008 (extracts)).
Arguably, even in the case of the "most protected" speech, namely that of a political nature, a somewhat wider margin of appreciation than that normally accorded is applicable to advertisements (see TV Vest AS and Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway, no. 21132/05, § 67, ECHR 2008).
Dès lors que la Cour applique une marge d'appréciation stricte pour un discours «d'intérêt général», l'interprétation doit être encore plus stricte pour un discours politique émanant d'un parti politique (voir, mutatis mutandis, TV Vest AS et Rogaland Pensjonistparti c. Norvège, no 21132/05, § 36, CEDH 2008).
This power of appreciation is not, however, unlimited but goes hand in hand with European supervision by the Court, whose task it is to give a final ruling on whether a restriction is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 (see, among many other authorities, CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 88, ECHR 2004-XI; Voskuil, cited above, § 63; and TV Vest AS and Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway, no. 21132/05, § 58, ECHR 2008 (extracts)).
EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 13916/06
YERANOSYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sum on that account (see, for example, TV Vest AS and Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway, no. 21132/05, § 80, 11 December 2008, and Maruszak v. Poland, no. 11253/07, § 62, 7 July 2009).