Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=29.03.2011&Aktenzeichen=50084/06
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 01:05:41
Document Index: 577655890

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 41', 'art. 6', 'art. 10', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 10', 'Art 10', 'Art. 10', '§ 103', '§ 87', '§ 115', '§ 60', '§ 117', '§ 104', '§ 34', '§ 48', '§ 142', '§ 103', '§ 87', '§ 1', '§ 49', '§ 65', '§ 33', '§ 25', '§ 122', '§ 70', '§ 88', '§ 44', '§ 39', '§ 97', '§ 36', '§ 94', '§ 87', '§ 65', '§ 51', '§ 33', '§ 59', '§ 28', '§ 74']

EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 50084/06 - dejure.org
EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 50084/06
RTBF c. BELGIQUE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation de l'art. 6-1 Violation de l'art. 10 Dommage matériel et préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant (französisch)
RTBF v. BELGIUM
Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (englisch)
lehofer.at (Kurzinformation)
"Im Namen des Gesetzes": Einstweiliges Ausstrahlungsverbot als Verstoß gegen Art 10 EMRK
Belgisches Fernsehen zu Unrecht zensiert (RTBF-Urteil)
Verletzung des Art. 10 EMRK durch Belgien wegen eines einstweiligen Ausstrahlungsverbots
EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10
Menschenrechtsgerichtshof verurteilt Türkei wegen Online-Zensur
According to the Court's established case-law, a rule is "foreseeable" if it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable any individual - if need be with appropriate advice - to regulate his conduct (see, among many other authorities, RTBF v. Belgium, no. 50084/06, § 103, ECHR 2011, and AltuÄ? Taner Akçam v. Turkey, no. 27520/07, § 87, 25 October 2011).
On the legal framework, see RTBF v. Belgium, no. 50084/06, § 115, ECHR 2011: "if prior restraints are required in the media sphere, they must form part of a legal framework ensuring both tight control over the scope of any bans and effective judicial review to prevent potential abuses." And on the judicial exercise of restraint, see Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 60, Series A no. 216: "... the dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court.
The question arising in the instant case is whether there has been interference by the public authorities with the applicant company's right to "impart information and ideas" and, if so, whether the interference was "prescribed by law", pursued one or more legitimate aims and was "necessary in a democratic society" for achieving them (see RTBF v. Belgium, no. 50084/06, § 117, ECHR 2011 (extracts)).
The level of precision required of domestic legislation - which cannot in any case provide for every eventuality - depends to a considerable degree on the content of the law in question, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed (see RTBF v. Belgium, no. 50084/06, § 104, ECHR 2011; Rekvényi, cited above, § 34; Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 48, Series A no. 323; and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano, cited above, § 142).
EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 48226/10
Türkei wegen YouTube-Blockade verurteilt
Selon la jurisprudence constante de la Cour, une norme est «prévisible» lorsqu'elle est rédigée avec assez de précision pour permettre à toute personne s'entourant au besoin de conseils éclairés de régler sa conduite (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, RTBF c. Belgique, no 50084/06, § 103, CEDH 2011, et Altug Taner Akçam, précité, § 87).
EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 67259/14
SELMANI AND OTHERS v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
In such circumstances, the Court considers that the right to report from the Parliament gallery, which fell within the applicants" freedom of expression, is a "civil right" for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see similarly Shapovalov v. Ukraine, no. 45835/05, § 49, 31 July 2012; RTBF v. Belgium, no. 50084/06, § 65, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Kenedi v. Hungary, no. 31475/05, § 33, 26 May 2009).
EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 31517/12
MIESSEN c. BELGIQUE
Néanmoins, un État qui se dote de juridictions de cette nature a l'obligation de veiller à ce que les justiciables jouissent auprès d'elles des garanties fondamentales de l'article 6 (voir, entre autres, Delcourt c. Belgique, 17 janvier 1970, § 25, série A no 11, Kudla c. Pologne [GC], no 30210/96, § 122, CEDH 2000-XI, RTBF c. Belgique, no 50084/06, § 70, CEDH 2011 (extraits), et Morice c. France [GC], no 29369/10, § 88, 23 avril 2015), notamment en ce qu'il assure aux plaideurs un droit effectif d'accès aux tribunaux pour faire statuer sur les contestations relatives à leurs droits et obligations de caractère civil (voir, parmi d'autres, Levages Prestations Services c. France, 23 octobre 1996, § 44, Recueil 1996-V, García Manibardo c. Espagne, no 38695/97, § 39, CEDH 2000-II, Andrejeva c. Lettonie [GC], no 55707/00, § 97, CEDH 2009, et L'Erablière A.S.B.L. c. Belgique, no 49230/07, § 36, CEDH 2009 (extraits)).
EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 78944/12
SAURE c. ALLEMAGNE
Schließlich habe der Gerichtshof früher bereits festgestellt, dass ein einstweiliges Rechtsschutzverfahren ein wirksamer und ausreichender Rechtsweg ist (Rechtssache RTBF./. Belgien, Nr. 50084/06, Rdnr. 89, CEDH 2011, bei der es ebenfalls um die Rechte der Presse geht).
EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 28255/07
CUMHURIYET VAKFI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
The Court finds that despite the lack of a final determination on the merits of the main claim, the interim injunction, which remained in effect for over ten months, constituted in itself an interference with the applicants" right to freedom of expression under the first paragraph of Article 10 (see RTBF v. Belgium, no. 50084/06, § 94, ECHR 2011 (extracts)), considering in particular the specific political circumstances in which it was applied.
In the Micallef case, the Court found that Article 6 was applicable because the purpose of the injunction was to determine, albeit for a limited period, the same civil right as the one being contested in the main proceedings, and which was immediately enforceable (see Micallef, cited above, § 87; and also RTBF v. Belgium, no. 50084/06, § 65, 29 March 2011).
EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 16563/08
JULIN v. ESTONIA
Furthermore, the Court has in several cases found that a particularly strict construction of procedural rules by the courts deprived applicants of their right of access to a court (see, mutatis mutandis and among others, Beles and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 47273/99, §§ 51 and 69, ECHR 2002-IX; Efstathiou and Others v. Greece, no. 36998/02, § 33, 27 July 2006; Kemp and Others v. Luxembourg, no. 17140/05, § 59, 24 April 2008; Reklos and Davourlis v. Greece, no. 1234/05, § 28, 15 January 2009; and RTBF v. Belgium, no. 50084/06, § 74, 29 March 2011).
EGMR, 15.09.2016 - 32610/07
TREVISANATO c. ITALIE
EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 18496/16
ESKERKHANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 12266/07
PEKARNY A CUKRARNY KLATOVY, A.S. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 50147/11
REICHMAN c. FRANCE
EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 37326/13
UNIFAUN THEATRE PRODUCTIONS LIMITED AND OTHERS v. MALTA
EGMR, 08.03.2016 - 14895/05
BILEN ET ÇORUK c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 12019/08
RAIHANI c. BELGIQUE
EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 19440/10
MANISCALCO v. ITALY
EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 5475/06
RONALD VERMEULEN c. BELGIQUE
EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 21444/11
HENRIOUD c. FRANCE
EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 7164/10
KRAJNJANAC c. SUISSE
EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 10296/10
MARIANI-BELLUCCI v. SWITZERLAND
EGMR - 41139/15 (anhängig)
AKDENIZ ET ALTIPARMAK c. TURQUIE et 1 autre affaire