Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 55495/08 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GENNER v. AUSTRIA
No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GENNER v. AUSTRIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
GENNER v. AUSTRIA
Wird zitiert von ... (5) Neu Zitiert selbst (10)
- EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98
SCHARSACH ET NEWS VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 55495/08
As the Court has noted in previous cases, the difference lies in the degree of factual proof which has to be established (see Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 40, ECHR 2003-XI).The Court further considers that the use of the term "Nazi" does not automatically justify a conviction for defamation on the ground of the special stigma attached to it (see Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 43, ECHR 2003-XI, concerning the term "neo-fascist" see Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 39, 14 December 2006.
- EGMR, 04.06.2009 - 21277/05
STANDARD VERLAGS GMBH v. AUSTRIA (No. 2)
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 55495/08
According to the Court's well-established case-law, the test of necessity in a democratic society requires the Court to determine whether the interference complained of corresponded to a "pressing social need", whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify it are relevant and sufficient (see The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 62, Series A no. 30; Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 42, ECHR 2004-IV; Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria (no. 2), no. 21277/05 § 44, 4 June 2009). - EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90
PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 55495/08
The classification of a statement as fact or as a value-judgment is a matter which first and foremost falls within the margin of appreciation of the national authorities, in particular the domestic courts (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 36, Series A no. 313).
- EGMR, 21.11.2013 - 16882/03
PUTISTIN v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 55495/08
Dealing appropriately with the dead out of respect for the feelings of the deceased's relatives falls within the scope of Article 8 (see with further references Hadri-Vionnet v. Switzerland, no. 55525/00, § 51, 14 February 2008, Editions Plon v. France, cited above § 46 and Putistin v. Ukraine, no. 16882/03, § 33, 21 November 2013). - EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02
LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 55495/08
Unlike the latter, the former inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large, and he must consequently display a greater degree of tolerance (see, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 46, ECHR 2007-IV; see Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France, cited above, § 117). - EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00
ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 55495/08
According to the Court's well-established case-law, the test of necessity in a democratic society requires the Court to determine whether the interference complained of corresponded to a "pressing social need", whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify it are relevant and sufficient (see The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 62, Series A no. 30; Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 42, ECHR 2004-IV; Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria (no. 2), no. 21277/05 § 44, 4 June 2009). - EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 29372/02
KARMAN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 55495/08
The Court further considers that the use of the term "Nazi" does not automatically justify a conviction for defamation on the ground of the special stigma attached to it (see Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 43, ECHR 2003-XI, concerning the term "neo-fascist" see Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 39, 14 December 2006. - EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74
SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 55495/08
According to the Court's well-established case-law, the test of necessity in a democratic society requires the Court to determine whether the interference complained of corresponded to a "pressing social need", whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify it are relevant and sufficient (see The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 62, Series A no. 30; Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 42, ECHR 2004-IV; Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria (no. 2), no. 21277/05 § 44, 4 June 2009). - EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95
JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 55495/08
The requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is impossible to fulfil and infringes freedom of opinion itself, which is a fundamental part of the right secured by Article 10. However, even where a statement amounts to a value judgment, there must exist a sufficient factual basis to support it, failing which it will be excessive (Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 43, ECHR 2001-II). - EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08
Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 55495/08
40660/08 and 60641/08, § 107, ECHR 2012).
- EGMR, 25.10.2018 - 38450/12
Kritik am Propheten Mohammed: Nicht nur was man sagt, sondern auch in welcher …
As the Court has noted in previous cases, the difference lies in the degree of factual proof which has to be established (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 43, ECHR 2001-II; Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, §§ 73-76, ECHR 2001 VIII; and Genner v. Austria, no. 55495/08, § 38, 12 January 2016). - BVerfG, 24.10.2022 - 1 BvR 19/22
Verfassungsbeschwerden betreffend das postmortale Persönlichkeitsrecht des …
Bei Angriffen auf den durch die Lebensstellung erworbenen Geltungsanspruch genügt beispielsweise nicht dessen Infragestellung, wohl aber deren grobe Entstellung (…BVerfG, Beschluss der 1. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 5. April 2001 - 1 BvR 932/94 -, Rn. 20; vgl. BVerfGE 93, 266 ; 107, 275 ;… BVerfG, Beschluss der 1. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 4. Februar 2010 - 1 BvR 369/04 u.a. -, Rn. 30; EGMR (GK), Éditions Plon c. France, Urteil vom 18. Mai 2004, Nr. 58148/00, § 53; EGMR, Genner v. Österreich, Urteil vom 12. Januar 2016, Nr. 55495/08, § 45). - EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 47881/11
PRUNEA v. ROMANIA
For these reasons, he was required to display a greater degree of tolerance (for similar reasoning, see, among the most recent authorities, Genner v. Austria, no. 55495/08, § 35, 12 January 2016).The Court is therefore satisfied that in the particular circumstances of the present case, the imposed sanction cannot be found to have been disproportionately severe (see, mutatis mutandis, Dorota Kania v. Poland (no. 2), no. 44436/13, § 83, 4 October 2016 and Genner v. Austria, no. 55495/08, § 49, 12 January 2016), and cannot be considered to have been capable of having a "chilling", dissuasive effect on the applicant's exercise of his right to freedom of expression.
For these reasons, he was required to display a greater degree of tolerance (see, among the most recent authorities, Genner v. Austria, no. 55495/08, § 35, 12 January 2016).
- EGMR, 18.10.2018 - 3779/11
ANNEN v. GERMANY (No. 6)
Geht es bei einer bestimmten Form von Äußerung einzig darum, eine Person zu beleidigen, würde eine angemessene Sanktion grundsätzlich nicht gegen Artikel 10 der Konvention verstoßen (siehe Genner./. Österreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 55495/08, Rdnr. 36, 12. Januar 2016). - EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 62364/10
IVANOV c. RUSSIE
Toutefois, l'infamie particulière attachée aux termes « nazi'et « fasciste'ne justifie pas que leur usage entraîne automatiquement une condamnation pour diffamation (Genner c. Autriche, no 55495/08, § 39, 12 janvier 2016, et la jurisprudence qui s'y trouve citée).