Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=14.03.2002&Aktenzeichen=26229/95
Timestamp: 2019-05-22 00:02:09
Document Index: 639615933

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 10', 'art. 10', '§ 52', '§ 52', '§ 39', '§ 30', '§ 52', '§ 52', '§ 39', '§ 30', '§ 52', '§ 39', '§ 30', '§ 120', '§ 52', '§ 52', '§ 39', '§ 30', '§ 52', '§ 64', '§ 153', '§ 219', '§ 54', '§ 70', '§ 42', '§ 40', '§ 54', '§ 34', '§ 54', '§ 219']

EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 26229/95 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2002,23615
EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 26229/95 (https://dejure.org/2002,23615)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14.03.2002 - 26229/95 (https://dejure.org/2002,23615)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14. März 2002 - 26229/95 (https://dejure.org/2002,23615)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2002,23615) 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 Costs and expenses partial award (englisch)
GAWEDA c. POLOGNE
Violation de l'art. 10 Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens (französisch)
Gaweda gegen Polen
EKMR, 15.01.1996 - 26229/95
EKMR, 13.01.1997 - 26229/95
The expression "prescribed by law" in the second paragraph of Article 10 not only requires that the impugned measure should have a legal basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see, among other authorities, VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken, cited above, § 52; Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 39, ECHR 2002-II; and Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I).
The Court reiterates its case-law to the effect that the expression "prescribed by law" not only requires that the impugned measure should have a legal basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see, among other authorities, VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, § 52, ECHR 2001-VI; Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 39, ECHR 2002-II; and Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I).
The Court reiterates that the expression "prescribed by law" in the second paragraph of Article 10 not only requires that the impugned measure should have a legal basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see, among other authorities, VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, § 52, ECHR 2001-VI; Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 39, ECHR 2002-II; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; and Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 120, ECHR 2015).
The Court reiterates its case-law to the effect that the expressions "prescribed by law" and "in accordance with the law" in Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention not only requires that the impugned measure should have a legal basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see, among other authorities, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, § 52, ECHR 2001-VI; Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 39, ECHR 2002-II; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; Vyerentsov, cited above, § 52; Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, §§ 64-65, ECHR 2004-I; and Sindicatul "Pastorul cel Bun" v. Romania [GC], no. 2330/09, § 153, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 1413/08
Verstoß gegen Religions- und Meinungsfreiheit: russisches Verbot von islamischen …
In a similar vein, a real loss of opportunities may also warrant monetary compensation (see, mutatis mutandis and among other authorities, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, §§ 219-220, ECHR 2012; Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 54, ECHR 2002-II; Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 70, ECHR 2000-VIII; and Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 42, Series A no. 37).
EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 30160/04
DZHAVADOV v. RUSSIA
Although Article 10 does not in terms prohibit the imposition of prior restraints on publications, the relevant law must provide a clear indication of the circumstances when such restraints are permissible, especially when they are to block publication of a periodical completely (see Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 40, ECHR 2002-II).
EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 45214/99
SILDEDZIS v. POLAND
However, the Court does not rule out that the applicant may have suffered some loss of opportunity which must be taken into consideration (Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, 14 March 2002, § 54).
En raison de cette fonction de la presse, la liberté journalistique implique aussi le recours possible à une certaine dose d'exagération, voire de provocation (Gaweda c. Pologne, no 26229/95, § 34, CEDH 2002-II).
EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 3330/12
JGK STATYBA LTD v. LITHUANIA
Without speculating on the profits which the applicant company would have achieved if the violations of the Convention had not occurred, the Court observes that the company suffered a real loss of opportunities (see, mutatis mutandis, Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 54, ECHR 2002-II) and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 219-220, ECHR 2012).