Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• HRR Strafrecht

  Art. 10 EMRK; Art. 17 EMRK; Art. 7 EMRK; Art. 5 GG; § 130 StGB; § 86a StGB
  Verwendung des roten Sterns und Schutz der Meinungsfreiheit (Schutz und Auslegung symbolischer politischer Äußerungen; Auslegung totalitaristische und nationalsozialistische Symbole; Eingriffe durch strafrechtliche Verbote; nationaler Beurteilungsspielraum; ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VAJNAI v. HUNGARY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 17, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of a violation sufficient (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VAJNAI c. HONGRIE

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 17, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 10 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant (französisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• lehofer.at (Kurzinformation)

  EGMR zu verbotenen politischen Symbolen

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Besprechungen u.ä. (2)

• nomos.de (Aufsatz mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)

  Grundrechtstheorien in Europa - kulturelle Bestimmtheit und universeller Gehalt

• 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)

Verfahrensgang

• EuGH, 06.10.2005 - C-328/04
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 33629/06
• EGMR, 11.12.2019 - 33629/06

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11508/85

  BARFOD c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 33629/06

  However, it must be emphasised that none of the cases cited by the Constitutional Court ( Barfod v. Denmark , judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149; Markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany , judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 165; Chorherr v. Austria , judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266?B; Casado Coca v. Spain , judgment of 24 February 1994, Series A no. 285?A; Jacubowski v. Germany , judgment of 23 June 1994, Series A no. 291?A) dealt with the particular question of the extent of State discretion in restricting the freedom of expression of politicians.
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83

  MARKT INTERN VERLAG GMBH ET KLAUS BEERMANN c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 33629/06

  However, it must be emphasised that none of the cases cited by the Constitutional Court ( Barfod v. Denmark , judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149; Markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany , judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 165; Chorherr v. Austria , judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266?B; Casado Coca v. Spain , judgment of 24 February 1994, Series A no. 285?A; Jacubowski v. Germany , judgment of 23 June 1994, Series A no. 291?A) dealt with the particular question of the extent of State discretion in restricting the freedom of expression of politicians.
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 59330/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 33629/06

  Secondly, almost two decades have elapsed from Hungary's transition to pluralism and the country has proved to be a stable democracy (see in this connection Sidabras and Džiautas v. Lithuania , nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 49, ECHR 2004?VIII; Rainys and Gasparavi?ius v. Lithuania , nos. 70665/01 and 74345/01, § 36, 7 April 2005).

 
• EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 70665/01

  RAINYS AND GASPARAVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 33629/06

  Secondly, almost two decades have elapsed from Hungary's transition to pluralism and the country has proved to be a stable democracy (see in this connection Sidabras and Džiautas v. Lithuania , nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 49, ECHR 2004?VIII; Rainys and Gasparavi?ius v. Lithuania , nos. 70665/01 and 74345/01, § 36, 7 April 2005).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 55480/00

  SIDABRAS ET DZIAUTAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 33629/06

  Secondly, almost two decades have elapsed from Hungary's transition to pluralism and the country has proved to be a stable democracy (see in this connection Sidabras and Džiautas v. Lithuania , nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 49, ECHR 2004?VIII; Rainys and Gasparavi?ius v. Lithuania , nos. 70665/01 and 74345/01, § 36, 7 April 2005).
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 7485/03

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 33629/06

  Moreover, they pointed out that, in a case concerning Article 11 ( W.P. and Others v. Poland , decision of 2 September 2004, no. 42264/98, Reports 2004-VII), the Court had observed that “the general purpose of Article 17 is to prevent totalitarian groups from exploiting in their own interests the principles enunciated by the Convention.” Similar conclusions were reached in the cases of Norwood v. the United Kingdom (decision of 16 November 2004, no. 23131/03, Reports 2004-VII) and Witzsch v. Germany (decision of 13 December 2005, no. 7485/03).
• EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 42264/98

  W.P. AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 33629/06

  Moreover, they pointed out that, in a case concerning Article 11 ( W.P. and Others v. Poland , decision of 2 September 2004, no. 42264/98, Reports 2004-VII), the Court had observed that “the general purpose of Article 17 is to prevent totalitarian groups from exploiting in their own interests the principles enunciated by the Convention.” Similar conclusions were reached in the cases of Norwood v. the United Kingdom (decision of 16 November 2004, no. 23131/03, Reports 2004-VII) and Witzsch v. Germany (decision of 13 December 2005, no. 7485/03).
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 23131/03

  NORWOOD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 33629/06

  Moreover, they pointed out that, in a case concerning Article 11 ( W.P. and Others v. Poland , decision of 2 September 2004, no. 42264/98, Reports 2004-VII), the Court had observed that “the general purpose of Article 17 is to prevent totalitarian groups from exploiting in their own interests the principles enunciated by the Convention.” Similar conclusions were reached in the cases of Norwood v. the United Kingdom (decision of 16 November 2004, no. 23131/03, Reports 2004-VII) and Witzsch v. Germany (decision of 13 December 2005, no. 7485/03).
• EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 65831/01

  Schutz der Infragestellung der von den Nazis am jüdischen Volk begangenen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 33629/06

  21.  The Government referred to the case-law of the Convention institutions, including the Court's decision in Garaudy v. France (decision of 24 June 2003, no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
• EKMR, 24.06.1996 - 31159/96

  MARAIS contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 33629/06

  They recalled that, where the right to freedom of expression had been relied on by applicants to justify the publication of texts that infringed the very spirit of the Convention and the essential values of democracy, the European Commission of Human Rights had had recourse to Article 17 of the Convention, either directly or indirectly, in rejecting their arguments and declaring their applications inadmissible (see e.g. J. Glimmerveen and J. Hagenbeek v. the Netherlands , nos. 8348/78 and 8406/78 (joined), Commission decision of 11 October 1979, Decisions and Reports (DR) 18, p. 187; Pierre Marais v. France , no. 31159/96, Commission decision of 24 June 1996, DR 86, p. 184.) In the Government's view, the Court subsequently confirmed that approach ( Lehideux and Isorni v. France , judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII, §§ 47 and 53).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EKMR, 11.10.1979 - 8348/78

  GLIMMERVEEN and HAGENBEEK v. the NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 64915/01

  CHAUVY AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

• BVerfG, 09.07.2020 - 1 BvR 2067/17

  Verbot der Verwendung von Kennzeichen verbotener Vereine verfassungsgemäß - …

  Das Kennzeichenverbot erscheint in einer demokratischen Gesellschaft notwendig, weil es einem nach dem Gewicht der Verbotsgründe in Art. 9 Abs. 2 GG dringenden sozialen Bedürfnis begegnet (vgl. EGMR, Vajnai v. Ungarn, Urteil vom 8. Juli 2008, Nr. 33629/06, § 34).
• EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 55795/11

  HORVÁTH AND VAJNAI v. HUNGARY

  On 8 July 2008 the European Court of Human Rights adopted a judgment in a case introduced by Mr Vajnai on account of a previous conviction similar in nature (see Vajnai v. Hungary, no. 33629/06, 8 July 2008).
• EGMR - 72826/14 (anhängig)

  FOCK v. HUNGARY and 1 other application

  Have there been violations of the applicants" right to freedom of expression and/or right to peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 10 and/or Article 11 of the Convention (see Vajnai v. Hungary, no. 33629/06, ECHR 2008; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, ECHR 2007-III)?.
• EGMR, 27.06.2019 - 36358/14

  VAJNAI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  The Court has outlined its approach to the application of Article 10 in the context of the display of the five-pointed red star in the case of Vajnai v. Hungary (no. 33629/06, §§ 48 to 58, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 6061/10

  VAJNAI v. HUNGARY NO.4

  In review proceedings, the Supreme Court upheld the Regional Court's decision on 8 June 2011, holding that the police measure had been lawful, despite the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Vajnai v. Hungary (no. 33629/06, ECHR 2008), whose application in the circumstances had been no task of the police officers present on the premises.