Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ATAMANCHUK v. RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• juraforum.de (Kurzinformation)

  Urteil zu Journalismus-Verbot in Russland gebilligt

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ATAMANCHUK v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 17 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (21)

• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 15615/07

  FERET c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 4493/11

  In assessing whether the statements could be seen as a direct or indirect call for violence or as a justification of violence, hatred or intolerance, the Court has been particularly sensitive towards sweeping statements attacking or casting in a negative light entire ethnic, religious or other groups (see Seurot v. France (dec.), no. 57383/00, 18 May 2004; Soulas and Others v. France, no. 15948/03, §§ 40 and 43, 10 July 2008; and Le Pen v. France (dec.), no. 18788/09, 20 April 2010, all of which concerned generalised negative statements about non-European and in particular Muslim immigrants in France; Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI, which concerned statements linking all Muslims in the United Kingdom with the terrorist acts in the United States of America on 11 September 2001; W.P. and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 42264/98, 2 September 2004, and Pavel Ivanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007, both of which concerned vehement anti-Semitic statements; Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, § 71, 16 July 2009, which concerned statements portraying non-European immigrant communities in Belgium as criminally minded; Hizb ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, § 73, 12 June 2012, and Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov v. Russia, nos.

  In my opinion, it would have been possible for the Court to find that the applicant's statements were not covered by Article 17, and then to conclude that there had (nevertheless) not been a violation of Article 10 (see, for a similar approach, Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, § 82, 16 July 2009).

• EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 51168/15

  Spanien: Foto des Königspaares verbrannt - Strafe unzulässig

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 4493/11

  51168/15 and 51186/15, § 23, 13 March 2018).

  51168/15 and 51186/15, § 42, 13 March 2018; and Ibragim Ibragimov and Others v. Russia, nos.

• EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 1413/08

  Verstoß gegen Religions- und Meinungsfreiheit: russisches Verbot von islamischen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 4493/11

  It is the interplay between the various factors rather than any of them taken in isolation that determines the outcome of a particular case (see Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 217-21, 17 July 2018, and Ibragim Ibragimov and Others, nos. 1413/08 and 28621/11, § 99, 28 August 2018).

  1413/08 and 28621/11, § 124, 28 August 2018).

 
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 31098/08

  HIZB UT-TAHRIR AND OTHERS v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 4493/11

  In assessing whether the statements could be seen as a direct or indirect call for violence or as a justification of violence, hatred or intolerance, the Court has been particularly sensitive towards sweeping statements attacking or casting in a negative light entire ethnic, religious or other groups (see Seurot v. France (dec.), no. 57383/00, 18 May 2004; Soulas and Others v. France, no. 15948/03, §§ 40 and 43, 10 July 2008; and Le Pen v. France (dec.), no. 18788/09, 20 April 2010, all of which concerned generalised negative statements about non-European and in particular Muslim immigrants in France; Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI, which concerned statements linking all Muslims in the United Kingdom with the terrorist acts in the United States of America on 11 September 2001; W.P. and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 42264/98, 2 September 2004, and Pavel Ivanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007, both of which concerned vehement anti-Semitic statements; Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, § 71, 16 July 2009, which concerned statements portraying non-European immigrant communities in Belgium as criminally minded; Hizb ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, § 73, 12 June 2012, and Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov v. Russia, nos.

  If the Court found that the statements made by the applicant were covered by Article 17, then Article 10 would have to be declared inapplicable and the complaint incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention, without there being any need to examine whether the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression was lawful, pursued a legitimate aim, and was proportionate to that aim (see, for example, Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI; Hizb Ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, 12 June 2012, §§ 74-75 and 78; Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, §§ 113-114, 14 November 2013; M"Bala M"Bala v. France (dec.), no. 25239/13, § 42, ECHR 2015 (extracts); Belkacem v. Belgium (dec.), no. 34367/14, § 37, 27 June 2017; and Roj TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 24683/14, §§ 48-49, 17 April 2018).

• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 23131/03

  NORWOOD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 4493/11

  In assessing whether the statements could be seen as a direct or indirect call for violence or as a justification of violence, hatred or intolerance, the Court has been particularly sensitive towards sweeping statements attacking or casting in a negative light entire ethnic, religious or other groups (see Seurot v. France (dec.), no. 57383/00, 18 May 2004; Soulas and Others v. France, no. 15948/03, §§ 40 and 43, 10 July 2008; and Le Pen v. France (dec.), no. 18788/09, 20 April 2010, all of which concerned generalised negative statements about non-European and in particular Muslim immigrants in France; Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI, which concerned statements linking all Muslims in the United Kingdom with the terrorist acts in the United States of America on 11 September 2001; W.P. and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 42264/98, 2 September 2004, and Pavel Ivanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007, both of which concerned vehement anti-Semitic statements; Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, § 71, 16 July 2009, which concerned statements portraying non-European immigrant communities in Belgium as criminally minded; Hizb ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, § 73, 12 June 2012, and Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov v. Russia, nos.

  If the Court found that the statements made by the applicant were covered by Article 17, then Article 10 would have to be declared inapplicable and the complaint incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention, without there being any need to examine whether the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression was lawful, pursued a legitimate aim, and was proportionate to that aim (see, for example, Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI; Hizb Ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, 12 June 2012, §§ 74-75 and 78; Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, §§ 113-114, 14 November 2013; M"Bala M"Bala v. France (dec.), no. 25239/13, § 42, ECHR 2015 (extracts); Belkacem v. Belgium (dec.), no. 34367/14, § 37, 27 June 2017; and Roj TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 24683/14, §§ 48-49, 17 April 2018).

• EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14

  Udo Pastörs: Holocaust-Leugnung ist in Europa kein Menschenrecht

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 4493/11

  The latter approach is possible when under the "normal" analysis of Article 10 the conclusion is that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded or that there has been no violation of that Article (see, for example, Williamson v. Germany (dec.), no. 64496/17, §§ 20-21, 8 January 2019; ? imunic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20373/17, § 39, 22 January 2019; and (implicitly) Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, § 49, 3 October 2019).
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 40984/07

  FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 4493/11

  If the Court had considered that the interference was not prescribed by law, did not pursue a legitimate aim or was not necessary in a democratic society, it could only have concluded that there had been a violation of Article 10 if it had rejected the Government's objection based on Article 17 (see, for example, Vajnai v. Hungary, no. 33629/06, §§ 26 and 58, ECHR 2008; Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, §§ 81 and 105, 22 April 2010; Rubins v. Latvia, no. 79040/12, §§ 49 and 93, 13 January 2015; Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, § 282, ECHR 2015 (extracts); Stern Taulats and Roura Capellera v. Spain, nos.
• EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 64496/17

  WILLIAMSON v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 4493/11

  The latter approach is possible when under the "normal" analysis of Article 10 the conclusion is that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded or that there has been no violation of that Article (see, for example, Williamson v. Germany (dec.), no. 64496/17, §§ 20-21, 8 January 2019; ? imunic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20373/17, § 39, 22 January 2019; and (implicitly) Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, § 49, 3 October 2019).
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 20373/17

  SIMUNIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 4493/11

  The latter approach is possible when under the "normal" analysis of Article 10 the conclusion is that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded or that there has been no violation of that Article (see, for example, Williamson v. Germany (dec.), no. 64496/17, §§ 20-21, 8 January 2019; ? imunic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20373/17, § 39, 22 January 2019; and (implicitly) Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, § 49, 3 October 2019).
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 25239/13

  Holocaust-Leugnung: Dieudonné gescheitert

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 4493/11

  If the Court found that the statements made by the applicant were covered by Article 17, then Article 10 would have to be declared inapplicable and the complaint incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention, without there being any need to examine whether the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression was lawful, pursued a legitimate aim, and was proportionate to that aim (see, for example, Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI; Hizb Ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, 12 June 2012, §§ 74-75 and 78; Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, §§ 113-114, 14 November 2013; M"Bala M"Bala v. France (dec.), no. 25239/13, § 42, ECHR 2015 (extracts); Belkacem v. Belgium (dec.), no. 34367/14, § 37, 27 June 2017; and Roj TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 24683/14, §§ 48-49, 17 April 2018).
• EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 65831/01

  Schutz der Infragestellung der von den Nazis am jüdischen Volk begangenen …
• EGMR, 10.10.2019 - 4782/18

  Österreich verurteilt: Vorwürfe eines KZ-Überlebenden nicht geprüft
• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35222/04

  PAVEL IVANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 34367/14

  BELKACEM c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 18788/09

  LE PEN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 15948/03

  SOULAS ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 24683/14

  ROJ TV A/S v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 42264/98

  W.P. AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 26261/05

  KASYMAKHUNOV AND SAYBATALOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 57383/00

  SEUROT contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  KASYMAKHUNOV v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 5869/17

  ERKIZIA ALMANDOZ c. ESPAGNE

  En l'occurrence, le différend porte sur la question de savoir si l'ingérence était « nécessaire dans une société démocratique'(Leroy c. France, no 36109/03, § 43, 2 octobre 2008 ; Stomakhin c. Russie, no 52273/07, § 83, 9 mai 2018 ; Atamanchuk c. Russie, no 4493/11, §§ 40-42, 11 février 2020).

  L'incitation à la haine n'implique pas nécessairement un appel explicite à un acte de violence ou à d'autres actes criminels (Féret c. Belgique, no 15615/07, § 73, 16 juillet 2009, Vejdeland et autres c. Suède, no 1813/07, § 55, 9 février 2012, Dmitriyevskiy c. Russie, no 42168/06, § 99, 3 octobre 2017, Ibragim Ibragimov et autres c. Russie, nos 1413/08 et 28621/11, § 94, 28 août 2018, et Atamanchuk c. Russie, no 4493/11, § 52, 11 février 2020).

• EGMR, 02.09.2021 - 45581/15

  SANCHEZ c. FRANCE

  Les atteintes aux personnes commises en injuriant, en ridiculisant ou en diffamant certaines parties de la population et des groupes spécifiques de celle-ci ou l'incitation à la haine et à la violence à l'égard d'une personne à raison de son appartenance à une religion, comme cela a été le cas en l'espèce, suffisent pour que les autorités privilégient la lutte contre de tels agissements face à une liberté d'expression irresponsable et portant atteinte à la dignité, voire à la sécurité de ces parties ou de ces groupes de la population (Féret, précité, § 73, et Atamanchuk c. Russie, no 4493/11, § 52, 11 février 2020).
• EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 10271/12

  KILIN v. RUSSIA

  other material 43. On 8 December 2015 the Council of Europe's European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) adopted General Policy Recommendation No. 15 on combating hate speech (for relevant summaries, see among others Atamanchuk v. Russia, no. 4493/11, § 29, 11 February 2020, and Karastelev and Others v. Russia, no. 16435/10, §§ 44-45, 6 October 2020).

  The Court also held, inter alia, that negative stereotyping of an ethnic group was capable, when reaching a certain level, of having an impact on the group's sense of identity and on its members" feelings of self-worth and self-confidence (ibid., § 58; see also Lewit v. Austria, no. 4782/18, §§ 46-47 and 82-87, 10 October 2019; and Atamanchuk v. Russia, no. 4493/11, §§ 42 and 61, 11 February 2020).

 
• EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 49588/12

  TESLENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Furthermore, the third applicant did not incite hatred, intolerance or discrimination and did not call for violence or other criminal acts to be committed (compare Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, §§ 67-81, 16 July 2009, and Atamanchuk v. Russia, no. 4493/11, §§ 53-73, 11 February 2020).
• EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 63539/19

  ZEMMOUR c. FRANCE

  Les atteintes aux personnes commises en injuriant, en ridiculisant ou en diffamant certaines parties de la population peuvent suffire pour que les autorités privilégient la lutte contre le discours raciste par rapport à la liberté d'expression exercée de manière irresponsable (Féret, précité, § 73, Atamanchuk c. Russie, no 4493/11, § 52, 11 février 2020).
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 29335/13

  BEHAR AND GUTMAN v. BULGARIA

  It has, at the same time, accepted that it may be justified to impose even serious criminal-law sanctions on journalists or politicians in cases of hate speech or incitement to violence (see CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 115, ECHR 2004-XI; Otegi Mondragon v. Spain, no. 2034/07, § 59, ECHR 2011; and in particular Atamanchuk v. Russia, no. 4493/11, §§ 67 and 70, 11 February 2020), and stated that even statements made by members of parliament deserve little, if any, protection if their content is at odds with the democratic values of the Convention system, since the exercise of freedom of expression, even in parliament, carries with it the "duties and responsibilities" referred to in Article 10 § 2 (see Pastörs, cited above, § 47).
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 12567/13

  BUDINOVA AND CHAPRAZOV v. BULGARIA

  It has, at the same time, accepted that it may be justified to impose even serious criminal-law sanctions on journalists or politicians in cases of hate speech or incitement to violence (see CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 115, ECHR 2004-XI; Otegi Mondragon v. Spain, no. 2034/07, § 59, ECHR 2011; and in particular Atamanchuk v. Russia, no. 4493/11, §§ 67 and 70, 11 February 2020), and stated that even statements made by members of parliament deserve little, if any, protection if their content is at odds with the democratic values of the Convention system, since the exercise of freedom of expression, even in parliament, carries with it the "duties and responsibilities" referred to in Article 10 § 2 (see Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, § 47, 3 October 2019).
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 65146/11

  CHOJNOWSKI ET AUTRES c. POLOGNE

  En l'espèce, la Cour n'estime pas nécessaire de statuer sur les exceptions du Gouvernement tirées du non-épuisement des voies de recours internes et du caractère abusif de la requête, celle-ci étant en tout état de cause irrecevable pour les motifs exposés ci-après (voir, mutatis mutandis, Atamanchuk c. Russie, no 4493/11, § 74, 11 février 2020).
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 9266/14

  ANSHAKOV c. RUSSIE

  Elle n'est pas convaincue, compte tenu des circonstances de l'espèce, que les déclarations litigieuses du requérant puissent être considérées comme suffisamment graves pour appeler une sanction pénale (voir, a contrario, Atamanchuk c. Russie, no 4493/11, §§ 69-70, 11 février 2020).