Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1994,10429
EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87 (https://dejure.org/1994,10429)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20.09.1994 - 13470/87 (https://dejure.org/1994,10429)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20. September 1994 - 13470/87 (https://dejure.org/1994,10429)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1994,10429) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

  • IRIS Merlin (Kurzinformation)

    Beschlagnahme eines "blasphemischen" Films verletzt nicht Artikel 10 EMRK

Besprechungen u.ä. (2)

  • nomos.de PDF (Aufsatz mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)

    Europäisches Religions- und Weltanschauungsrecht

  • zaoerv.de PDF (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

    Art. 10 EMRK
    Filmkunst im Spannungsfeld zwischen Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung und Religionsfreiheit - Fall Otto-Preminger-Institut (Dr. iur. Christoph Grabenwarter; ZaöRV 55/1995, S. 128-165)

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • Serie A Nr. 295-A
 
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 ... (98)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

    HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87
    Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" (see, particularly, the Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 23, para. 49).

    As the majority correctly state, echoing the famous passage in the Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment (7 December 1976, Series A no. 24), freedom of expression is a fundamental feature of a "democratic society"; it is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but particularly to those that shock, offend or disturb the State or any sector of the population.

  • EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13914/88

    INFORMATIONSVEREIN LENTIA AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87
    The necessity for any restriction must be convincingly established (see, as the most recent authority, the Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 276, p. 15, para. 35).

    The necessity of a particular interference for achieving a legitimate aim must be convincingly established (see, as the most recent authority, the Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 276, p. 15, para. 35).

  • EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84

    MÜLLER AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87
    As in the case of "morals" it is not possible to discern throughout Europe a uniform conception of the significance of religion in society (see the Müller and Others v. Switzerland judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, p. 20, para. 30, and p. 22, para. 35); even within a single country such conceptions may vary.

    The Court has rightly held that those who create, perform, distribute or exhibit works of art contribute to exchange of ideas and opinions and to the personal fulfilment of individuals, which is essential for a democratic society, and that therefore the State is under an obligation not to encroach unduly on their freedom of expression (see the Müller and Others v. Switzerland judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, p. 22, para. 33).

     
  • EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

    OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87
    This is all the more true in cases such as the present, where the interference as regards the seizure takes the form of prior restraint (see, mutatis mutandis, the Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, p. 30, para. 60).
  • EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

    Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87
    The Convention is to be read as a whole and therefore the interpretation and application of Article 10 (art. 10) in the present case must be in harmony with the logic of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, the Klass and Others v. Germany judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 31, para. 68).
  • EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

    KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87
    As the Court pointed out in its judgment in the case of Kokkinakis v. Greece of 25 May 1993 (Series A no. 260-A, p. 17, para. 31), freedom of thought, conscience and religion, which is safeguarded under Article 9 (art. 9) of the Convention, is one of the foundations of a "democratic society" within the meaning of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88

    OPEN DOOR AND DUBLIN WELL WOMAN v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87
    A person can properly claim to be a "victim" of an interference with the exercise of his rights under the Convention if he has been directly affected by the matters allegedly constituting the interference (see, inter alia and mutatis mutandis, the Norris v. Ireland judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, pp. 15-16, para. 31, and the Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland judgment of 29 October 1992, Series A no. 246, p. 22, para. 43).
  • EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83

    NORRIS c. IRLANDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87
    A person can properly claim to be a "victim" of an interference with the exercise of his rights under the Convention if he has been directly affected by the matters allegedly constituting the interference (see, inter alia and mutatis mutandis, the Norris v. Ireland judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, pp. 15-16, para. 31, and the Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland judgment of 29 October 1992, Series A no. 246, p. 22, para. 43).
  • EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14556/89

    PAPAMICHALOPOULOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87
    It follows that they are estopped from doing so before the Court (see, as the most recent authority, the Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 260-B, p. 68, para. 36).
  • EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87

    CHORHERR v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87
    The Court reiterates that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply national law (see, as the most recent authority, the Chorherr v. Austria judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-B, p. 36, para. 25).
  • EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

    BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  • EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11

    Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens

    Referring to the Otto- Preminger-Institut v. Austria judgment (20 September 1994, § 50, Series A no. 295-A) and the Dahlab v. Switzerland decision (no. 42393/98, ECHR 2001-V), it added that it was thus not possible to discern throughout Europe a uniform conception of the significance of religion in society and that the meaning or impact of the public expression of a religious belief would differ according to time and context.
  • EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 48420/10

    Eweida u.a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich - Religionsfreiheit am Arbeitsplatz

    Lorsque, comme dans les cas de la première et du quatrième requérants, les actes dénoncés ont été commis par des sociétés privées et ne sont donc pas directement imputables à l'État défendeur, la Cour doit examiner les questions sur le terrain de l'obligation positive incombant aux instances de l'État de reconnaître à toute personne relevant de sa juridiction les droits énoncés à l'article 9 (voir, mutatis mutandis, Palomo Sánchez et autres c. Espagne [GC], nos 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 et 28964/06, §§ 58-61, CEDH 2011 ; voir aussi Otto-Preminger-Institut c. Autriche, 20 septembre 1994, § 47, série A no 295-A).
  • EGMR, 25.10.2018 - 38450/12

    Kritik am Propheten Mohammed: Nicht nur was man sagt, sondern auch in welcher …

    Referring to the Court's case-law (Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A; I.A., cited above; Wingrove v. the United Kingdom, 25 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; Aydin Tatlav, cited above; and Giniewski v. France, no. 64016/00, ECHR 2006-I) it held that the aim of the interference had been to protect religious peace and the religious feelings of others and was therefore legitimate.
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