Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SCHIMANEK v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 7, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 17, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Besprechungen u.ä.

• zaoerv.de (Aufsatz mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)

  Hassrede und extremistische Meinungsäußerungen in der Rechtsprechung des EGMR und nach dem Wunsiedel-Beschluss des BVerfG (Mathias Hong; ZaöRV 70 (2010), 73-126)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2000 - 32307/96

  Only in exceptional circumstances could the length of a sentence raise doubts as to its compatibility with Article 3 of the Convention (Weeks v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, p. 25 § 47).
• EGMR, 22.06.1989 - 11373/85

  ERIKSSON c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2000 - 32307/96

  Its task is accordingly not to review the aforesaid legal provisions and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which they were applied to or affected the applicant gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see for instance, Eriksson v. Sweden judgment of 22 June 1989, Series A no. 156, p. 23, § 54).
• EGMR, 01.07.1961 - 332/57

  LAWLESS c. IRLANDE (N° 3)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2000 - 32307/96

  In particular the European Commission of Human Rights has found in several similar cases that the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 10 of the Convention may not be invoked in a sense contrary to Article 17 (see mutatis mutandis the Lawless v. Ireland judgment of 1 July 1961 (merits), Series A no. 3, pp.

• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 27510/08

  Leugnung des Völkermords an Armeniern von Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt

  After 1 November 1998 the Court also dealt with several such cases and likewise declared the applications in all of them inadmissible (see Witzsch v. Germany (no. 1) (dec.), no. 41448/98, 20 April 1999; Schimanek v. Austria (dec.), no. 32307/96, 1 February 2000; Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX; Witzsch v. Germany (no. 2) (dec.), no. 7485/03, 13 December 2005; and Gollnisch v. France (dec.), no. 48135/08, 7 June 2011).
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 7485/03

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

  41448/98, 20. April 1999; Schimanek ./. Österreich (Entsch.), Nr. 32307/96, 1. Februar 2000; Garaudy ./. Frankreich (Entsch.), Nr. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX; Norwood ./. Vereinigtes Königreich (Entsch.), 23131/03, 16. November 2004).
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 23131/03

  NORWOOD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  La Cour et, avant elle, la Commission européenne des Droits de l'Homme ont jugé en particulier que la liberté d'expression garantie par l'article 10 de la Convention ne saurait être invoquée dans un sens contraire à l'article 17 (voir notamment W.P. et autres c. Pologne (déc.), no 42264/98, CEDH 2004-VII ; Garaudy c. France (déc.), no 65831/01, CEDH 2003-IX ; Schimanek c. Autriche (déc.), no 32307/96, 1er février 2000 ; et aussi Glimmerveen et Hagenbeek c. Pays-Bas, nos 8348/78 et 8406/78, décision de la Commission du 11 octobre 1979, Décisions et rapports 18).

 
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08

  Leugnung des Völkermords an den Armeniern kann von Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt sein

  In Witzsch v. Germany ((dec.), no. 41448/98, 20 April 1999), the Court found that the expression "historical lies" about the mass murder of Nazi victims was not protected by Article 10. The same reasoning was confirmed in Schimanek v. Austria ((dec.), no. 32307/96, 1 February 2000) and Witzsch v. Germany ((dec.), no. 7485/03, 13 December 2005).
• EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 29297/18

  LILLIENDAHL v. ICELAND

  Although the comments were highly prejudicial, as discussed further below, it is not immediately clear that they aimed at inciting violence and hatred or destroying the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (compare Witzsch v. Germany (no. 1) (dec.), no. 41448/98, 20 April 1999; Schimanek v. Austria (dec.), no. 32307/96, 1 February 2000; Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX; Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, 16 November 2004; Witzsch v. Germany (no. 2) (dec.), no. 7485/03, 13 December 2005; and Molnar v. Romania (dec.), no. 16637/06, 23 October 2012).
• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 31446/09

  TUNCER v. TURKEY

  Accordingly, the Court sees no reason to depart from its considerations in the aforementioned decisions (see also Schimanek v. Austria, (dec.) no. 32307/96, 1 February 2000, Salaman v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43505/98, 15 June 2000 and Roberts and Roberts v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38681/08, 5 July 2011).