Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 09.07.2002

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 44179/98   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2003,18239
EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 44179/98 (https://dejure.org/2003,18239)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.07.2003 - 44179/98 (https://dejure.org/2003,18239)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. Juli 2003 - 44179/98 (https://dejure.org/2003,18239)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2003,18239) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

Besprechungen u.ä.

  • lehofer.at (Kurzaufsatz mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)

    Verbot religiöser Rundfunkwerbung

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 ... (17)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

  • EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 44179/98
      The Government disputed that the Sunday Times and Handyside judgments (Handyside v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, and Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30) allowed the applicant to broadcast religious advertisements that offended, shocked and disturbed.
  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

    HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 44179/98
      The Government disputed that the Sunday Times and Handyside judgments (Handyside v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, and Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30) allowed the applicant to broadcast religious advertisements that offended, shocked and disturbed.
  • EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87

    OTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 44179/98
    The present case concerned the broadcasting (Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 276) of a paid advertisement (Vgt Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, ECHR 2001-VI) which promoted a religious event and beliefs (Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, judgment of 20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A and Wingrove v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V) and which contained no political or "public interest" element.
  • EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

    JERSILD v. DENMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 44179/98
    The Court has acknowledged that account must be taken of the fact that the audio-visual media have a more immediate and powerful effect than the print media (Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, § 31).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1985 - 8734/79

    Barthold ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 44179/98
      70.  The Court notes at the outset that the nature and purpose of the expression contained in the relevant advertisement accords with it being treated as religious, as opposed to commercial, expression even if the applicant purchased the relevant broadcasting time (Barthold v. Germany, judgment of 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, § 58).
  • EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 10890/84

    GROPPERA RADIO AG ET AUTRES c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 44179/98
    In any event, the relevant case-law (including Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 173, § 64; Informationsverein Lentia and Others, cited above, at § 32; and Radio ABC v. Austria, judgment of 20 October 1997, Reports 1997-VI, § 28) provided that a restriction had to be justified under the third sentence of Article 10 § 1 as well as under the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

    CASTELLS v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 44179/98
      67.  In this latter respect, there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on debate of questions of public interest (see, mutatis mutandis, among many other authorities, Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, § 42; Castells v. Spain, judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, § 43; and Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, § 63).
  • EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

    THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 44179/98
      67.  In this latter respect, there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on debate of questions of public interest (see, mutatis mutandis, among many other authorities, Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, § 42; Castells v. Spain, judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, § 43; and Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, § 63).
  • EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13914/88

    INFORMATIONSVEREIN LENTIA AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 44179/98
    The present case concerned the broadcasting (Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 276) of a paid advertisement (Vgt Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, ECHR 2001-VI) which promoted a religious event and beliefs (Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, judgment of 20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A and Wingrove v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V) and which contained no political or "public interest" element.
  • EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 24699/94

    VgT VEREIN GEGEN TIERFABRIKEN c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 44179/98
    The present case concerned the broadcasting (Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 276) of a paid advertisement (Vgt Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, ECHR 2001-VI) which promoted a religious event and beliefs (Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, judgment of 20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A and Wingrove v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V) and which contained no political or "public interest" element.
  • EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 22479/93

    ÖZTÜRK v. TURKEY

  • BVerfG, 11.09.2007 - 1 BvR 2270/05

    Rundfunkfinanzierungsstaatsvertrag

    a) Anlass der gesetzlichen Ausgestaltung der Rundfunkordnung ist die herausgehobene Bedeutung, die dem Rundfunk unter den Medien wegen seiner Breitenwirkung, Aktualität und Suggestivkraft zukommt (vgl. BVerfGE 31, 314 ; 90, 60 ; 97, 228 ; 103, 44 ; 114, 371 ; vgl. auch EGMR, Urteil vom 5. November 2002 - Beschwerde-Nr. 38743/97 - Demuth gegen Schweiz, EuGRZ 2003, S. 488 , § 43; Urteil vom 10. Juli 2003 - Beschwerde-Nr. 44179/98 - Murphy gegen Irland, § 69; stRspr).
  • EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

    Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

    Both judges doubted the relevance of Murphy v. Ireland (no. 44179/98, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)): it did not concern political advertising and they were not convinced by the observation therein that the margin of appreciation for restrictions on political advertising might be narrower than those on religious advertising.

    The "somewhat wider margin of appreciation" referred to in TV Vest (cited above) was relevant only insofar as the State sought to rely upon special features of its national situation which peculiarly justified the restriction (as in Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)) and that was not the situation in the present case.

    Whether or not audio-visual has a wider meaning than television broadcasting as such, it is clear from cases such as Jersild v. Denmark (judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A, no. 298) and Murphy v. Ireland (no. 44179/98, ECHR 2003 IX (extracts) that television broadcasting has consistently been treated by the Court, as well as by the legislature in the present case, as having a particularly powerful influence which may require special provisions of control.

    In Murphy v. Ireland (no. 44179/98, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)) the general ban (on advertisements directed to a religious end) was held to be justified because of past experience of unrest in the context of a highly divisive issue in Irish society, namely religious beliefs (§ 73).

    The quality of the parliamentary and judicial review conducted at national level is also of importance, including to the application of the relevant margin of appreciation (see Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 128, ECHR 2003-VIII; Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, § 73, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, §§ 78-80, ECHR 2005-IX; Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 86, ECHR 2007-I; Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 83, ECHR 2007-V).

  • EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06

    MOUVEMENT RAËLIEN SUISSE c. SUISSE

    As regards the extent of the margin of appreciation, the Government emphasised that the ideas disseminated in the various publications obtainable through the Raelian Movement's website were capable of offending the religious beliefs of certain persons, and that the authorities had a wide margin of appreciation in that sphere (they cited Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, § 67, ECHR 2003-IX).

    A lower-level demonstration of a pressing social need in this context has been recognised (see Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, ECHR 2003-IX).

    [16] Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, §§ 76-77, ECHR-IX.

  • EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 13936/02

    MANOLE ET AUTRES c. MOLDOVA

    La fonction de la télévision et de la radio, sources familières de divertissement au cÅ“ur de l'intimité du téléspectateur ou de l'auditeur, renforce encore leur impact (Murphy c. Irlande, no 44179/98, § 74, CEDH 2003-IX (extraits)).
  • EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09

    CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY

    The function of television and radio as familiar sources of entertainment in the intimacy of the listener's or viewer's home further reinforces their impact (see Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, § 74, ECHR 2003-IX).
  • EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 57792/15

    Kopfbedeckung im Gericht rechtmäßig

    The only exception to this is where there are shown to be strong reasons for doing so." 14. In this respect, the Court's task is to determine whether the reasons relied on by the national authorities to justify the measures interfering with the applicant's rights are "relevant and sufficient" for the purposes of the Convention right at stake (see, mutatis mutandis, Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, § 68, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 42571/98

    I.A. v. TURKEY

    Among them, in the context of religious beliefs, may legitimately be included a duty to avoid expressions that are gratuitously offensive to others and profane (see, for example, Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, judgment of 20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A, pp. 18-19, § 49, and Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, § 67, ECHR 2003-IX).
  • EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 21132/05

    TV Vest AS & Rogaland Pensjonistparti ./. Norwegen

    As regards the issue of necessity under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention Mr Justice Oftedal Broch had particular regard to the Court's judgments in Vgt Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland (no. 24699/94, ECHR 2001-VI) and Murphy v. Ireland (no. 44179/98, ECHR 2003-IX), concerning restrictions on political broadcasts relating respectively to animal protection and to the rearing of animals (on television) and to the promotion of religious gatherings (on the radio).
  • EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 26587/07

    KRUPKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    On the one hand, the Wingrove judgment affirmed, in 1996, that "a wider margin of appreciation is generally available to the Contracting States when regulating freedom of expression in relation to matters liable to offend intimate personal convictions within the sphere of morals or, especially, religion" (see Wingrove v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 November 1996, § 58, Reports 1996 V, reiterated in Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, § 67, 10 July 2003).
  • BVerfG, 02.05.2007 - 1 BvR 809/06
    a) Anlass der gesetzlichen Ausgestaltung der Rundfunkordnung ist die herausgehobene Bedeutung, die dem Rundfunk unter den Medien wegen seiner Breitenwirkung, Aktualität und Suggestivkraft zukommt (vgl. BVerfGE 31, 314 ; 90, 60 ; 97, 228 ; 103, 44 ; 114, 371 ; vgl. auch EGMR, Urteil vom 5. November 2002 - Beschwerde-Nr. 38743/97 - Demuth gegen Schweiz, EuGRZ 2003, S. 488 , § 43; Urteil vom 10. Juli 2003 - Beschwerde-Nr. 44179/98 - Murphy gegen Irland, § 69; stRspr).
  • EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 22636/19

    Oben-Ohne Protest in katholischer Kirche: Bewährungsstrafe gegen Aktivistin

  • BVerfG, 02.05.2007 - 1 BvR 830/06
  • EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 28470/12

    NIT S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 31.01.2006 - 64016/00

    GINIEWSKI c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 8257/13

    Blasphemie-Urteil gegen polnische Sängerin nicht rechtens

  • EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 12261/06

    AYDOGAN ET DARA RADYO TELEVIZYON YAYINCILIK ANONIM SIRKETI c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 21132/05

    TV VEST AS AND ROGALAND PENSJONISTPARTI v. NORWAY

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 09.07.2002 - 44179/98   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2002,32728
EGMR, 09.07.2002 - 44179/98 (https://dejure.org/2002,32728)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09.07.2002 - 44179/98 (https://dejure.org/2002,32728)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09. Juli 2002 - 44179/98 (https://dejure.org/2002,32728)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2002,32728) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

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 (5)

  • EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

    AIREY v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2002 - 44179/98
    Accordingly, even if he did abandon the argument concerning the correct construction and application of the relevant section, he can be considered to have quite reasonably chosen to have exhausted an effective and relevant domestic remedy which reflected his essential grievance before this Court (application no. 24196/94, decision of 22 January 1996, Decisions and Report (DR) 84, p. 72, and Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, § 23).
  • EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13914/88

    INFORMATIONSVEREIN LENTIA AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2002 - 44179/98
    Such a principle would be, however, inconsistent with the principles laid down in Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria judgment (of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 276).
  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

    HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2002 - 44179/98
    He notes that the protection of Article 10 extends to ideas that "offend, shock or disturb" (Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, § 49).
  • EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

    KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2002 - 44179/98
    He therefore complains about a restriction by the State on his expression of matters of a religious nature, a complaint falling within the scope of both Article 9 (Kokkinakis v. Greece judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A, § 31) and of Article 10 (Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 173, § 55).
  • EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 10890/84

    GROPPERA RADIO AG ET AUTRES c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2002 - 44179/98
    He therefore complains about a restriction by the State on his expression of matters of a religious nature, a complaint falling within the scope of both Article 9 (Kokkinakis v. Greece judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A, § 31) and of Article 10 (Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 173, § 55).
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