Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VEJDELAND AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 10 (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VEJDELAND AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (4)

• internet-law.de (Kurzinformation)

  Verurteilung wegen homophober Hate-Speech keine Verletzung der Menschenrechtskonvention

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
• Telepolis (Pressebericht, 09.02.2012)

  Verurteilung eines homophoben Agitatoren gebilligt

• kostenlose-urteile.de (Kurzmitteilung)

  Verurteilung wegen Verteilung eines Flugblattes gegen Homosexuelle von der Europäischen Menschenrechts Konvention (EMRK) gedeckt - Kein Verstoß gegen Art. 10 EMRK (Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung)

Besprechungen u.ä.

• lehofer.at (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  Verurteilung wegen homophober hate speech an Schule keine Verletzung des Art 10 EMRK

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• NJW 2013, 285

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 15615/07

  FERET c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2012 - 1813/07

  Attacks on persons committed by insulting, holding up to ridicule or slandering specific groups of the population can be sufficient for the authorities to favour combating racist speech in the face of freedom of expression exercised in an irresponsible manner (see Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, § 73, 16 July 2009).

  Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, 16 July 2009, Dissenting opinion of Judge András Sajó, joined by Judges Vladimiro Zagrebelsky and Nona Tsotsoria.

  Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, 16 July 2009.

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2012 - 1813/07

  The Court also takes into consideration that the leaflets were left in the lockers of young people who were at an impressionable and sensitive age and who had no possibility to decline to accept them (see, mutatis mutandis, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 52, Series A no. 24).

  Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24.

• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 23131/03

  NORWOOD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2012 - 1813/07

  [20]..Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI. In this case the applicant was convicted for displaying in his window a poster with a photograph of the Twin Towers in flame and the words "Islam out of Britain - Protect the British People".

 
• RG, 25.04.1904 - 4785/03

  Zum Begriffe der verbotenen Nachbildung von Mustern.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2012 - 1813/07

  Nevertheless, the Court has also held that "abuse of freedom of expression is incompatible with democracy and human rights and infringes the rights of others" (see Witzsch v. Germany (dec.), no. 4785/03, 13 December 2005).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94

  CEYLAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2012 - 1813/07

  Finally, an important factor to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with freedom of expression is the nature and severity of the penalties imposed (see Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-IV; Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, § 69, ECHR 2001-I; and Skaÿka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, §§ 41-42, 27 May 2003).
• EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 41205/98

  TAMMER v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2012 - 1813/07

  Finally, an important factor to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with freedom of expression is the nature and severity of the penalties imposed (see Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-IV; Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, § 69, ECHR 2001-I; and Skaÿka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, §§ 41-42, 27 May 2003).

• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 64569/09

  Betreiber haftet für Nutzerkommentare

  La Cour a des exigences relativement claires quant à ce qui constitue un appel inadmissible à la violence (Sürek c. Turquie (no 1) ([GC], no 26682/95, § 62, CEDH 1999-IV), Dagtekin c. Turquie (no 36215/97, 13 janvier 2005), Erbakan c. Turquie (no 59405/00, § 56, 6 juillet 2006), Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens et July c. France ([GC], nos 21279/02 et 36448/02, § 56-58, CEDH 2007-IV), Otegi Mondragon c. Espagne (no 2034/07, § 54, CEDH 2011) et Vejdeland c. Suède (no 1813/07, § 55, 9 février 2012)).
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 27510/08

  Leugnung des Völkermords an Armeniern von Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt

  In assessing that point, the Court has been particularly sensitive towards sweeping statements attacking or casting in a negative light entire ethnic, religious or other groups (see Seurot v. France (dec.), no. 57383/00, 18 May 2004, Soulas and Others, cited above, §§ 40 and 43; and Le Pen, cited above, all of which concerned generalised negative statements about non-European and in particular Muslim immigrants in France; Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI, which concerned statements linking all Muslims in the United Kingdom with the terrorist acts in the United States of America on 11 September 2001; W.P. and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 42264/98, 2 September 2004, and Pavel Ivanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007, both of which concerned vehement anti-Semitic statements; Féret, cited above, § 71, which concerned statements portraying non-European immigrant communities in Belgium as criminally-minded; Hizb ut-Tahrir and Others, § 73, and Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov, § 107, both cited above, which concerned direct calls for violence against Jews, the State of Israel, and the West in general; and Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, § 54, 9 February 2012, which concerned allegations that homosexuals were attempting to play down paedophilia and were responsible for the spread of HIV and AIDS).
• EGMR, 20.06.2017 - 67667/09

  "Homosexuellen-Propaganda"-Gesetz in Russland: Diskriminierend - und …

  Further references were made to Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden (no. 1813/07, § 55, 9 February 2012) in which the Court noted that the homophobic leaflets in question had been distributed to "young people who were at an impressionable and sensitive age and who had no possibility to decline to accept them"; the Government implied that this was equally relevant to the present case.

 
• EGMR, 23.01.2023 - 61435/19

  Verstoß gegen Meinungsfreiheit: Geschichten über gleichgeschlechtliche …

  38. In this connection, it is necessary to draw attention to the caselaw of the ECtHR on the protection of the interests of minor children in the context of the dissemination of information about homosexuality ... In its caselaw, the ECtHR, when analysing the necessity of restricting freedom of expression (Article 10 of the Convention) in a democratic society, focuses on the analysis of the content of the work and publication, their individual elements (such as text or illustrations) and their possible impact on minors, society and morality (not in a generalised way, but arguing those aspects in detail), the extent of the restriction imposed and its objective necessity (including consideration of the need for various possible measures, such as special labels or packaging) (see, for example, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24; Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, 9 February 2012; and Kaos GL v. Turkey, no. 4982/07, 22 November 2016).

  Kuli and Róycki v. Poland, no. 27209/03, § 39, 6 October 2009; and Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, § 56, 9 February 2012; see also Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 52, Series A no. 24).

• EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 5869/17

  ERKIZIA ALMANDOZ c. ESPAGNE

  En ce sens, il n'apparaît pas de la manière dont les propos ont été formulés une aptitude particulière à nuire (voir Gerger, précité, § 50, et, a contrario, Féret, précité, § 76 et Vejdeland et autres c. Suède, no 1813/07, § 56, 9 février 2012).

  L'incitation à la haine n'implique pas nécessairement un appel explicite à un acte de violence ou à d'autres actes criminels (Féret c. Belgique, no 15615/07, § 73, 16 juillet 2009, Vejdeland et autres c. Suède, no 1813/07, § 55, 9 février 2012, Dmitriyevskiy c. Russie, no 42168/06, § 99, 3 octobre 2017, Ibragim Ibragimov et autres c. Russie, nos 1413/08 et 28621/11, § 94, 28 août 2018, et Atamanchuk c. Russie, no 4493/11, § 52, 11 février 2020).

• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 32401/10

  TAGANROG LRO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Attacks on individuals committed by insulting, holding up to ridicule or slandering vulnerable groups of the population can be a sufficient ground warranting the suppression of such speech (see Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, § 73, 16 July 2009, and Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, § 55, 9 February 2012).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 31.10.2019 - C-507/18

  Associazione Avvocatura per i diritti LGBTI

  33 EGMR, 9. Februar 2012, Vejdeland u. a./Schweden (CE:ECHR:2012:0209JUD000181307, §§ 47 bis 60).
• EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 24225/19

  GEORGIAN MUSLIM RELATIONS AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  The Court notes, in this connection, that attacks on persons committed by insulting, holding up to ridicule or slandering specific groups of the population can be sufficient for the authorities to favour combating xenophobic or otherwise discriminatory speech in the face of freedom of expression exercised in an irresponsible manner (see Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, § 55, 9 February 2012; see also Association ACCEPT and Others, cited above, § 119).
• EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07

  STOMAKHIN v. RUSSIA

  Moreover, it cannot be said that the incriminated statements were disseminated in a form that was impossible to ignore (see Perinçek, cited above, § 253, and, by contrast, Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, §§ 56-57, 9 February 2012), or in any other way that enhanced the message they were conveying (see, by contrast, Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, § 76, 16 July 2009).
• EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 1759/08

  KABOGLU ET ORAN c. TURQUIE

  Les facteurs clés dans l'appréciation de la Cour dans ces affaires sont le point de savoir si les propos ont été tenus dans un contexte politique ou social tendu (Zana c. Turquie, 25 novembre 1997, §§ 57-60, Recueil 1997-VII, Soulas et autres c. France, no 15948/03, §§ 38-39, 10 juillet 2008, et Balsyte-Lideikiene c. Lituanie, no 72596/01, § 78, 4 novembre 2008) ; la question de savoir si les propos, correctement interprétés et appréciés dans leur contexte immédiat ou plus général, peuvent passer pour un appel direct ou indirect à la violence ou pour une justification de la violence, de la haine ou de l'intolérance (voir, entre autres, Özgür Gündem c. Turquie (no 23144/93, CEDH 2000-III) § 64, Féret c. Belgique, no 15615/07, §§ 69-73 et 78, 16 juillet 2009, et Fáber c. Hongrie, no 40721/08, §§ 52 et 56-58, 24 juillet 2012) ; et la manière dont les propos ont été formulés et leur capacité - directe ou indirecte - à nuire (Karatas c. Turquie ([GC], no 23168/94, §§ 51-52, CEDH 1999-IV, et Vejdeland et autres c. Suède, no 1813/07, § 56, 9 février 2012).
• EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 29297/18

  LILLIENDAHL v. ICELAND
• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 47833/20

  LENIS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 79584/12

  SLAVA JURISIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 50495/08

  ALTINTAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 39375/19

  VALAITIS v. LITHUANIA