Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2013,36392
EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08 (https://dejure.org/2013,36392)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.12.2013 - 27510/08 (https://dejure.org/2013,36392)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. Dezember 2013 - 27510/08 (https://dejure.org/2013,36392)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,36392) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PERINÇEK c. SUISSE

    Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
    Partiellement irrecevable Violation de l'article 10 - Liberté d'expression-Générale (Article 10-1 - Liberté d'expression) Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PERINÇEK v. SWITZERLAND

    Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PERINÇEK v. SWITZERLAND - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

    [DEU] Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (4)

  • internet-law.de (Kurzinformation)

    Leugnung des Völkermords an den Armeniern kann von Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt sein

  • zeit.de (Pressebericht, 18.12.2013)

    Leugnung des Völkermords an Armeniern fällt unter Meinungsfreiheit

  • lto.de (Kurzinformation)

    Meinungsfreiheit - Völkermord an Armeniern darf geleugnet werden

  • RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Besprechungen u.ä.

  • juwiss.de (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

    Befremdliches aus Strassburg: EGMR erlaubt Leugnen des Armenier-Genozids

Sonstiges (3)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (42)

  • EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08

    FÁBER v. HUNGARY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08
    Under particular circumstances (see, conversely, Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, 24 July 2012) such remarks, combined with negationist discourse, might have resulted in a clear and present danger of incitement to hatred, the standard applied by the Court in similar cases for finding that the interference of the criminal law was proportionate (see Gül and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870/02, § 42, 8 June 2010).

    [36] See Judge Pinto de Albuquerque's separate opinion in Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, 24 July 2012.

  • AG Bad Hersfeld, 28.10.1997 - C 736/97
    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08
    [13] See communication No. 736/97, Ross v. Canada, Views adopted on 18 October 2000.

    [18] See communication No. 736/97, Ross v. Canada, Views adopted on 18 October 2000.

  • EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 2668/07

    DINK c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08
    In Dink v. Turkey (nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, 14 September 2010) the applicant was found guilty of denigrating "Turkishness" (Türklük).

    This is how we read the Dink v. Turkey judgment (nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, 14 September 2010).

     
  • EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

    JERSILD v. DENMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08
    The Court draws attention to the vital importance of combating racial discrimination in all its forms and manifestations (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 30, Series A no. 298).

    The present case was thus to be distinguished from the situation examined by the Court in Jersild v. Denmark (23 September 1994, Series A no. 298), in which the applicant had not made the objectionable statements himself (ibid., § 31) and his news report could not objectively have appeared to have as its purpose the propagation of racist views and ideas (ibid., § 33).

  • EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 15615/07

    FERET c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08
    Political speeches that stir up hatred based on religious, ethnic or cultural prejudices represent a threat to social peace and political stability in democratic States (see Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, § 73, 16 July 2009).

    See Judge Pinto de Albuquerque's separate opinion in Vona, cited above; and also Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, §§ 75-76, 16 July 2009, and CERD Communication no. 34/2004, § 7.5, Communication no. 43/2008, § 7.6, and Communication no. 48/2010, § 8.4.

  • EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 65831/01

    Schutz der Infragestellung der von den Nazis am jüdischen Volk begangenen …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08
    Thus, in the case of Garaudy v. France ((dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)), which concerned, inter alia, the conviction for denial of crimes against humanity of the author of a book that systematically disputed such crimes perpetrated by the Nazis against the Jewish community, the Court found the applicant's Article 10 complaint incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.

    [41] Corresponding to an "established historical fact", to use the Court's expression (see Lehideux and Isorni v. France, 23 September 1998, § 47, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII, and Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX).

  • EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 36109/03

    LEROY c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08
    In Leroy v. France (no. 36109/03, 2 October 2008) the Court found that the form of expression in issue did not fall within the category of publications which Article 17 of the Convention excluded from the protection of Article 10. Firstly, the underlying message the applicant had sought to convey through the humorous yet controversial medium of a cartoon - namely the destruction of American imperialism - was not aimed at destroying fundamental rights and could not be equated with remarks directed against the Convention's underlying values, for example remarks characterised by racism, anti-Semitism (see Garaudy, cited above, and Pavel Ivanov, cited above) or Islamophobia (see Norwood, cited above).
  • EGMR, 20.04.1999 - 41448/98

    WITZSCH v. GERMANY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08
    In Witzsch v. Germany ((dec.), no. 41448/98, 20 April 1999), the Court found that the expression "historical lies" about the mass murder of Nazi victims was not protected by Article 10. The same reasoning was confirmed in Schimanek v. Austria ((dec.), no. 32307/96, 1 February 2000) and Witzsch v. Germany ((dec.), no. 7485/03, 13 December 2005).
  • EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

    WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08
    The Court does not dispute that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 46, Series A no. 33).
  • EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 12750/87

    PHILIS v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08
    According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see Philis v. Grece (no. 1), 27 August 1991, § 74, Series A no. 209).
  • EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

    CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  • EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

    THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  • EGMR, 29.05.2007 - 26870/04

    D. K. gegen Deutschland

  • EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 2933/03

    COX v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 28.09.2000 - 37698/97

    LOPES GOMES DA SILVA c. PORTUGAL

  • KreisG Eisenach, 27.05.1992 - C 29/92
  • EGMR, 31.01.2006 - 64016/00

    GINIEWSKI c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

    MAESTRI c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 10890/84

    GROPPERA RADIO AG ET AUTRES c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00

    ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE

  • BVerfG, 09.11.2011 - 1 BvR 461/08

    Meinungsfreiheit; Tatsachenbehauptung; Werturteil; allgemeines Gesetz; …

  • EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 73604/01

    Monnat / Schweiz "L´honneur perdu de la Suisse"

  • EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

    KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  • BVerfG, 13.04.1994 - 1 BvR 23/94

    Auschwitzlüge

  • EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

    Radikalenerlaß

  • BVerfG, 25.03.2008 - 1 BvR 1753/03

    Volksverhetzung durch rechtsextremistische Liedtexte

  • EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

    SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  • EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

    KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE

  • EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 26229/95

    GAWEDA v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 24699/94

    VgT VEREIN GEGEN TIERFABRIKEN c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 35071/97

    GUNDUZ v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

    Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 25067/94

    ERDOGDU ET INCE c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 35943/10

    VONA v. HUNGARY

  • EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

    ROTARU v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 01.02.2000 - 32307/96

    SCHIMANEK v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 7485/03

    Missbrauchsverbot der EMRK (Nazi-Propaganda; Holocaust: Ausschwitz-Lüge und …

  • EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 16637/06

    MOLNAR c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 20985/05

    ORBAN ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35222/04

    PAVEL IVANOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 23131/03

    NORWOOD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 01.07.1961 - 332/57

    LAWLESS c. IRLANDE (N° 3)

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht