Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PASTÖRS v. GERMANY

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

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

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (3)

• zeit.de (Pressemeldung, 03.10.2019)

  Udo Pastörs: Holocaust-Leugnung ist in Europa kein Menschenrecht

• lto.de (Kurzinformation)

  Ex-NPD-Abgeordneter scheitert vorm EGMR: Holocaustleugnung ist keine Meinung

• welt.de (Pressebericht, 03.10.2019)

  NPD-Politiker Pastörs: Holocaust-Leugnung ist kein Menschenrecht

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PASTÖRS v. GERMANY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• AG Schwerin, 16.08.2012 - 38 Ls 322/11
• LG Schwerin, 25.03.2013 - 42 Ns 27/12
• OLG Rostock, 16.08.2013 - 1 Ss 57/13
• EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14

Wird zitiert von ... (27)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 14659/04

  DOROZHKO AND POZHARSKIY v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14

  As regards "other links" between a judge and other protagonists in a set of proceedings, the Court has previously found objectively justified doubts as to the impartiality of a trial court's presiding judge whose husband was the head of the team of investigators dealing with the applicants' case (see Dorozhko and Pozharskiy v. Estonia, nos. 14659/04 and 16855/04, §§ 56-58, 24 April 2008).

  We would like to point out that the approach in the case of Dorozhko and Pozharskiy v. Estonia (nos. 14659/04 and 16855/04, 24 April 2008) is conceptually of relevance also to the present case (see, by contrast, paragraph 58 of the present judgment).

• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14

  Unlike in the present case, where the objective justification of the applicant's doubt in respect of the judges dealing with his appeal on points of law primarily results from the procedure they chose to reject the bias complaint against them, the impartiality defects in earlier cases were either more severe (objective and subjective bias found in Kyprianou, cited above, §§ 128 and 133; fundamental flaws in the court-martial system in Findlay v. the United Kingdom, 25 February 1997, §§ 78-79, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I; the composition of the first-instance court and matters of internal organisation in De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 33, Series A no. 86) or the subsequent decisions did not give substantive arguments in response to the applicant's complaint of bias, thus not remedying the defect (Boyan Gospodinov v. Bulgaria, no. 28417/07, §§ 58-59, 5 April 2018).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13839/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14

  The Court finds that the applicant's complaint of bias against X could not be considered as abusive or irrelevant as there might have been an appearance of lack of impartiality (see A.K. v. Liechtenstein, cited above, § 80; contrast Debled v. Belgium, 22 September 1994, § 37, Series A no. 292-B).

• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 68924/12

  SLOMKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14

  The objective pursued by the (exceptional) procedure under Article 26a of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to avoid courts having to interrupt or even stay proceedings in order for abusive or irrelevant challenges to be examined (see paragraph 31 above) - which is legitimate in the interest of proper administration of justice (see A.K. v. Liechtenstein, cited above, § 68) and in respect of which parallels can be drawn to the participation of judges in proceedings in respect of contempt of court committed before them, which may be compatible with the Convention in exceptional circumstances (compare Kyprianou, cited above, §§ 124-25; see also Słomka v. Poland, no. 68924/12, 6 December 2018).
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 25239/13

  Holocaust-Leugnung: Dieudonné gescheitert

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14

  Rather, it is in the first place for the national authorities, especially the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see M'Bala M'Bala v. France (dec.), no. 25239/13, § 30, ECHR 2015 (extracts), with further references).
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 7485/03

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14

  In the present case the Court considers, on the one hand, that the applicant's statements showed his disdain towards the victims of the Holocaust, which speaks in favour of the incompatibility ratione materiae of the complaint with the provisions of the Convention (compare Witzsch v. Germany (no. 2) (dec.), no. 7485/03, 13 December 2005).
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 42461/13

  KARÁCSONY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14

  Interferences with the freedom of expression of an opposition Member of Parliament call for the closest scrutiny on the part of the Court (see the summary of relevant principles in Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, §§ 137-141, 17 May 2016, with further references).
• BGH, 20.10.2003 - II ZB 31/02

  Mitwirkung des Ehegatten eines Rechtsmittelrichters

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14

  The case-law of the domestic courts diverges as to whether a justifiable fear of bias follows from the fact of marriage alone in a scenario in which the challenged judge is married to the judge who rendered judgment at the level of jurisdiction immediately below and in which that judgment is under scrutiny at the appeal stage (no fear of bias found by the Federal Court of Justice, no. II ZB 31/02, decision of 20 October 2003; fear of bias found by the Federal Social Court, no. B 14 AS 70/AS, decision of 18 March 2013, in view of the complexity of, and close scrutiny of the challenged judgment in, proceedings concerning an appeal on points of law).
• EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 64496/17

  Ex-Piusbruder und Holocaust-Leugner Williamson scheitert in Straßburg

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14

  The former Commission and the Court have dealt with a number of cases under Articles 10 and/or 17 of the Convention concerning denial of the Holocaust and other statements relating to Nazi crimes and declared them inadmissible, either as being manifestly ill-founded (see recently Williamson v. Germany (dec.), no. 64496/17, 8 January 2019) - relying on Article 17 as an aid in the interpretation of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention and using it to reinforce its conclusion on the necessity of the interference - or as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention in view of Article 17 of the Convention (see Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 209-212, ECHR 2015 (extracts), with further references; see also Roj TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 24683/14, §§ 26-38, 17 April 2018, for an analysis of the case-law concerning Article 17 of the Convention).
• EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 24683/14

  ROJ TV A/S v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14

  The former Commission and the Court have dealt with a number of cases under Articles 10 and/or 17 of the Convention concerning denial of the Holocaust and other statements relating to Nazi crimes and declared them inadmissible, either as being manifestly ill-founded (see recently Williamson v. Germany (dec.), no. 64496/17, 8 January 2019) - relying on Article 17 as an aid in the interpretation of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention and using it to reinforce its conclusion on the necessity of the interference - or as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention in view of Article 17 of the Convention (see Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 209-212, ECHR 2015 (extracts), with further references; see also Roj TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 24683/14, §§ 26-38, 17 April 2018, for an analysis of the case-law concerning Article 17 of the Convention).
• EGMR, 22.06.2010 - 41029/06

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• BGH, 20.08.2025 - 3 StR 484/24

  Verurteilungen des thüringischen AfD-Fraktionsvorsitzenden wegen Verwendens von …

  Dies gilt unabhängig davon, ob man diese als ein besonderes Verfahrenshindernis (so etwa ThürVerfGH, Beschluss vom 9. Januar 2019 - 40/16, LVerfGE 30, 505, 518 mwN;… Dürig/ Herzog/Scholz/Klein/Schwarz, GG, 107. EL, Art. 46 Rn. 32) oder einen persönlichen Schuldausschließungsgrund wertet (vgl. OLG Celle, Urteil vom 15. November 2013 - 32 Ss 135/13, NdsRpfl. 2014, 280, 281; EGMR, Urteil vom 3. Oktober 2019 - 55225/14, juris Rn. 29;… LK/Grube, StGB, 13. Aufl., § 36 Rn. 9 mwN; offen gelassen von BGH, Urteil vom 18. Dezember 1979 - VI ZR 240/78, BGHZ 75, 384, 390).
• EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 14305/17

  Selahattin Demirtas

  In verifying that freedom of expression remains secured, the Court's scrutiny in this context should be stricter (see Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, § 38, 3 October 2019).
• EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 77400/14

  AYOUB c. FRANCE

  Ce droit est encadré par les exceptions visées à l'article 11 § 2 sauf s'il est clairement établi que cette formation poursuit une activité ou commet des actes visant à la destruction des droits et libertés consacrés dans la Convention (Hizb Ut-Tahrir et autres c. Allemagne (déc.), no 31098/08, 12 juin 2012, Kasymakhunov et Saybatalov précité, § 103, Vona, précité, § 38 ; voir, également, s'agissant de la liberté d'expression, mutatis mutandis, Perincek, précité, § 114, Pastörs c. Allemagne, no 55225/14, § 37, 3 octobre 2019).

  Enfin, la Cour rappelle qu'elle a déclaré irrecevables plusieurs affaires portant sur la négation de l'holocauste et sur des propos concernant les crimes nazis sous l'angle de l'article 10 et/ou 17 de la Convention, soit comme étant manifestement mal fondées (pour un exemple récent, Williamson contre Allemagne (déc.), no 64496/17, 8 janvier 2019) - s'appuyant sur l'article 17 comme une aide à l´interprétation de l'article 10 § 2 de la Convention et pour conforter sa conclusion confirmant la nécessité de l'ingérence - soit comme étant incompatible ratione materiae avec les dispositions de la Convention compte tenu de l'article 17 de la Convention (Pastörs c. Allemagne, no 55225/14, §.36, 3 octobre 2019 et les affaires qui y sont citées).

• EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 10271/12

  KILIN v. RUSSIA

  Article 17 is only applicable on an exceptional basis and in extreme cases and should, in cases concerning Article 10 of the Convention, only be resorted to if it is immediately clear that the impugned statements sought to deflect this Article from its real purpose by employing the right to freedom of expression for ends clearly contrary to the values of the Convention (see Perinçek, cited above, § 114, and Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, § 37, 3 October 2019).

  The Court has previously taken into account the intention of or the purpose being pursued by the applicant, in particular where that consideration had formed part of the criminal courts' reasoning (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, §§ 32-33 and 36, Series A no. 298; Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, §§ 70-71, 16 July 2009; Perinçek, cited above, §§ 232-33; Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, §§ 115 and 123, 9 May 2018; Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, §§ 43-48, 3 October 2019; and Atamanchuk, cited above, §§ 60 and 62).

• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 29335/13

  BEHAR AND GUTMAN v. BULGARIA

  As regards (in particular) the statements denying the reality of the Holocaust and casting it as a story contrived as means for financial extortion (see paragraphs 12 and 13 above), the Court and the former Commission have invariably seen such statements as attacks on the Jewish community and as incitement to racial hatred, anti-Semitism and xenophobia (see Perinçek, cited above, § 209, with further references, and, more recently, Williamson v. Germany (dec.), no. 64496/17, § 26, 8 January 2019, and Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, §§ 39 and 48, 3 October 2019).
• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 4493/11

  ATAMANCHUK v. RUSSIA

  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; Šimunić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20373/17, § 39, 22 January 2019; and (implicitly) Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, § 49, 3 October 2019).
• EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 11214/19

  INTERNATIONALE HUMANITÄRE HILFSORGANISATION E. V. v. GERMANY

  As with Article 10 (see the principles outlined in Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, §§ 36-38, 3 October 2019 and the case-law cited therein), the former Commission and the Court have dealt with a number of cases under Articles 11 and/or 17 of the Convention concerning associations whose statutes and/or activities are contrary to core Convention values, for example where they promote and justify terrorism and war crimes.
• 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, 26.04.2022 - 37713/18

  MEDIENGRUPPE ÖSTERREICH GMBH v. AUSTRIA

  This must apply all the more to persons who did not only express extremist views but who committed severe crimes such as those under the Prohibition Act that run counter to the letter and the spirit of the Convention (see, in this context, mutatis mutandis, Witzsch v. Germany (dec.), no. 7485/03, 13 December 2005 and the cases cited therein, and, more recently, Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, § 39, 3 October 2019).
• EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 52969/13

  WOJCZUK v. POLAND

  The decisive point when assessing whether statements are removed from the protection of Article 10 by Article 17, is whether those statements are directed against the Convention's underlying values, for example by stirring up hatred or violence, or whether by making the statement, the author attempted to rely on the Convention to engage in an activity or perform acts aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms laid down in it (Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, § 37, 3 October 2019).
• EGMR, 12.05.2026 - 38741/19

  ASENOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 69575/10

  RASHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 42917/16

  ZAICESCU AND FALTICINEANU v. ROMANIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 30.05.2023 - 39954/09

  ALEKSEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 24.06.2025 - 4986/24

  A AND B v. MALTA
• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 36658/18

  ZHABLYANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 58138/09

  MIRONOV v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 27925/21

  Pablo Hasél
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 3642/10

  MUKHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.03.2021 - 45202/14

  KOLESNIKOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 04.06.2024 - 62199/19

  BOSEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 01.07.2025 - 51757/12

  SHARMA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 13.06.2023 - 23445/18

  BAYDEMIR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 35364/19

  BONNET c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 52095/11

  TESLYA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 13.06.2024 - 16710/20

  CHRISTMANN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 23.05.2023 - 61548/21

  DALVY c. LES 47 ÉTATS MEMBRES