Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LILLIENDAHL v. ICELAND

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 29297/18

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 101, ECHR 2012, and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, 29 March 2016).

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 107, ECHR 2012).

• EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 65831/01

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 29297/18

  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, 13.12.2005 - 7485/03

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 29297/18

  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, 09.02.2012 - 1813/07

  Verurteilung wegen homophober Hate-Speech keine Verletzung der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 29297/18

  Furthermore, 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, inter alia, Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-IV, and Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, § 58, 9 February 2012).
• EGMR, 01.02.2000 - 32307/96

  SCHIMANEK v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 29297/18

  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, 23.10.2012 - 16637/06

  MOLNAR c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 29297/18

  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, 16.11.2004 - 23131/03

  NORWOOD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 29297/18

  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, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94

  CEYLAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 29297/18

  Furthermore, 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, inter alia, Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-IV, and Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, § 58, 9 February 2012).
• EGMR, 20.04.1999 - 41448/98

  WITZSCH v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 29297/18

  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, 08.10.2020 - 77400/14

  AYOUB ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Dans l'affaire Molnar contre Roumanie ((déc.), no 16637/06, 23 octobre 2012), la Cour a considéré que la distribution d'affiches sur lesquelles étaient inscrits « la Roumanie a besoin d'enfants non pas d'homosexuels'était de nature à troubler gravement l'ordre public et allait à l'encontre des valeurs fondamentales de la Convention et d'une société démocratique, et qu'un tel acte n'était pas protégé par l'article 10 (voir, a contrario, pour un discours dont il n'était pas immédiatement clair qu´il visait à la violence ou à la haine homophobe, Carl Jóhann Lilliendahl c. Islande (déc.), no 29297/18, § 26, 11 juin 2020).
• EGMR, 20.06.2023 - 25285/15

  KARACA c. TÜRKIYE

  De plus, ces devoirs et responsabilités peuvent revêtir de l'importance lorsque l'on risque de porter atteinte à la réputation des personnes concrètement désignées et de nuire aux « droits d'autrui'(voir, entre autres, Pedersen et Baadsgaard c. Danemark [GC], no 49017/99, § 78, CEDH 2004-XI et, mutatis mutandis, dans le cadre d'un discours de haine, Lilliendahl c. Islande (déc.), no 29297/18, 12 mai 2020 et, dans le cadre d'une intention discriminatoire, Zemmour, précité, § 61).
• EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 14879/20

  DURUKAN ET BIROL c. TÜRKIYE

  De même, elle estime que si l'expression « sale voleur Tayyip Erdogan'publiée par la requérante sur son compte twitter peut être jugée hautement préjudiciable et désobligeante à l'égard de son destinataire, elle ne peut être analysée pour autant comme visant à inciter à la violence et à la haine ou à détruire les droits et libertés protégés par la Convention (Lilliendahl c. Islande (déc.), no 29297/18, § 26, 12 mai 2020).
• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 47833/20

  LENIS v. GREECE

  In particular, the Court notes that it has already found that gender and sexual minorities required special protection from hateful and discriminatory speech because of the marginalisation and victimisation to which they have historically been, and continue to be, subjected (see Lilliendahl v. Iceland (dec.), no. 29297/18, § 45, 12 May 2020).
• EGMR, 02.09.2021 - 46883/15

  Z.B. c. FRANCE

  En l'espèce toutefois, la Cour estime que les mentions litigieuses - aussi controversées puissent-elles être - ne suffisent pas à révéler de manière immédiatement évidente que le requérant tendait par ce biais à la destruction des droits et libertés consacrés dans la Convention (voir, en ce sens, Perinçek c. Suisse [GC], no 27510/08, §§ 114-115, CEDH 2015 (extraits) et Lilliendahl c. Islande (déc.), no 29297/18, § 26, 12 mai 2020).