Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FRATANOLO v. HUNGARY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• lehofer.at (Kurzinformation)

  EGMR zu verbotenen politischen Symbolen

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Fratanoló v. Hungary

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 29459/10

  Although freedom of expression may be subject to exceptions, they "must be narrowly interpreted" and "the necessity for any restrictions must be convincingly established" (see, for instance, Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 29459/10

  Subject to paragraph 2, it is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those which offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no "democratic society" (see, among many other authorities, Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), 23 May 1991, § 57, Series A no. 204; and Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 29459/10

  Furthermore, the Court stresses that there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on the debate of questions of public interest (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 29459/10

  Furthermore, the Court stresses that there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on the debate of questions of public interest (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).

• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08

  FÁBER v. HUNGARY

  I voted along with the majority in this case mostly because, as a disciplined judge, I felt bound by the Court's previous rulings in Vajnai (Vajnai v. Hungary, app. no. 33629/06), being the leading case, as well as in Fratanolo (Fratanolo v. Hungary, app no. 29459/10), the case in which I was on the bench.

  [3] On political symbols in the Court's case-law, see Vajnai v. Hungary, no. 33629/06, ECHR 2008, and Fratanoló v. Hungary, no. 29459/10, 3 November 2011.

• EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 35285/16

  NIX v. GERMANY

  Turning to the circumstances of the applicant's conviction, the Court observes that the symbol used by the applicant - a picture of Heinrich Himmler in SS uniform with a swastika armband - cannot be considered to have any other meaning than that of Nazi ideology (compare and contrast the cases of Vajnai v. Hungary, no. 33629/06, §§ 52 et seq., ECHR 2008, and Fratanoló v. Hungary, no. 29459/10, § 25, 3 November 2011, concerning the use of the red star).
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9540/07

  MURAT VURAL v. TURKEY

  For example, in its judgment in the case of Vajnai v. Hungary the Court accepted that the wearing of a red star in public as a symbol of the international workers" movement must be regarded as a way of expressing political views and that the display of such vestimentary symbols fell within the ambit of Article 10 of the Convention (no. 33629/06, §§ 6 and 47, ECHR 2008; see also Fratanoló v. Hungary, no. 29459/10, § 24, 3 November 2011).
• EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 55795/11

  HORVÁTH AND VAJNAI v. HUNGARY

  The Court recalls that it has already found that the prosecution of an applicant for displaying the red star was an admissible complaint and constituted a violation of Article 10 (see Vajnai, cited above; Fratanoló v. Hungary, no. 29459/10, 3 November 2011).
• EGMR, 27.06.2019 - 36358/14

  VAJNAI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  However, in any case, a symbol which might have several meanings in the context of the case of Vajnai, where it had been displayed by a leader of a registered political party with no known totalitarian ambitions, could not be equated with dangerous propaganda (see Fratanoló v. Hungary, no. 29459/10, § 25, 3 November 2011).