Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MOUVEMENT RAËLIEN SUISSE c. SUISSE

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Exception préliminaire rejetée (Article 35-3 - Manifestement mal fondé) Non-violation de l'article 10 - Liberté d'expression-Générale (Article 10-1 - Liberté d'expression) ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MOUVEMENT RAËLIEN SUISSE v. SWITZERLAND

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded) No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MOUVEMENT RAËLIEN SUISSE v. SWITZERLAND - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MOUVEMENT RAËLIEN SUISSE v. SWITZERLAND - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (3)

• lehofer.at (Kurzinformation und Auszüge)

  Verbot der Plakatkampagne des Mouvement raëlien suisse war keine Verletzung des Art 10 EMRK

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
• juraforum.de (Kurzinformation)

  UFO-Sekte darf nicht mit Plakaten werben

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Mouvement Raelien Suisse v. Switzerland

  [16.11.2011]

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 16354/06
• EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (31)

• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 44306/98

  APPLEBY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06

  The present case can also be distinguished from that of Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 44306/98, ECHR 2003-VI), which concerned the use of space belonging to a private company, and from the Women On Waves case concerning the denial of authorisation for a ship to enter a State's territorial waters - space that was "public and open by its very nature" (cited above, § 40).

  In this respect the case has certain similarities to that of Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 44306/98, ECHR 2003-VI), in which the restriction on the applicants" ability to communicate their views was limited to the entrance areas and passageways of a shopping mall and in which the Court's conclusion that the State was not in breach of its positive obligations under Article 10 was in part founded on the fact that the applicants had not been prevented from disseminating those views in other parts of the town or by other means.

  These considerations are relevant in the present case, as they were in Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 44306/98, ECHR 2003-VI).

  [8] This issue was addressed in regard to access to private space in Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 44306/98, ECHR 2003-VI), with reference to the positions of the US Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Canada.

  [15] Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44306/98, §§ 47-49, ECHR 2003-VI, referring to Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. [United States Supreme Court Reports] 501.

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06

  In this connection, the Court would point out that certain local authorities may have plausible reasons for choosing not to impose restrictions in such matters (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 54, Series A no. 24).

  For reasons explained in the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Tulkens, Sajó, Lazarova Trajkovska, Bianku, Power-Forde, Vucinic and Yudkivska, this case clearly falls under the test laid down in The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (26 April 1979, Series A no. 30) and in Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, Series A no. 24).

  [2] Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 54, Series A no. 24.

• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06

  The boundaries between the State's positive and negative obligations under the Convention do not lend themselves to precise definition (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 82, ECHR 2009); in both situations - whether the obligations are positive or negative - the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see, for example, Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, §§ 51-52, Series A no. 290).

  [38] See, for example, Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 82, ECHR 2009.

  At this juncture, it is also relevant to stress that the Court itself has significantly diminished the impact of the markt intern jurisprudence, in so far as it has admitted that commercial statements, i.e. commercially motivated or otherwise commercial in their origin, may also be involved in a debate of general interest and thus the margin of appreciation should be concomitantly reduced (see Hertel v. Switzerland, § 47, 25 August 1998, and Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland, no. 32772/02, §§ 69-71, 28 June 2001).

 
• EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 44179/98

  MURPHY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06

  As regards the extent of the margin of appreciation, the Government emphasised that the ideas disseminated in the various publications obtainable through the Raelian Movement's website were capable of offending the religious beliefs of certain persons, and that the authorities had a wide margin of appreciation in that sphere (they cited Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, § 67, ECHR 2003-IX).

  A lower-level demonstration of a pressing social need in this context has been recognised (see Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, ECHR 2003-IX).

  [16] Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, §§ 76-77, ECHR-IX.

• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06

  For reasons explained in the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Tulkens, Sajó, Lazarova Trajkovska, Bianku, Power-Forde, Vucinic and Yudkivska, this case clearly falls under the test laid down in The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (26 April 1979, Series A no. 30) and in Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, Series A no. 24).

  [30] See The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 59, Series A no. 30.

• EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84

  MÜLLER AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06

  In such cases, the national authorities are in principle, by reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, in a better position than the international judge to give an opinion on the "necessity" of a "restriction" or "penalty" intended to fulfil the legitimate aims pursued thereby (see Müller and Others v. Switzerland, 24 May 1988, § 35, Series A no. 133).

  [3] Müller and Others v. Switzerland, 24 May 1988, § 36, Series A no. 133.

• EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 15450/89

  CASADO COCA v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06

  Similarly, States have a broad margin of appreciation in the regulation of speech in commercial matters or advertising (see markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany, 20 November 1989, § 33, Series A no. 165, and Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 50, Series A no. 285-A).

  In any event, even restrictions on commercial advertising must "be closely scrutinised by the Court, which must weigh the requirements of [the] particular features [of such advertising] against the advertising in question" (see Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 51, Series A no. 285-A, and Stambuk, cited above, § 39).

• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83

  MARKT INTERN VERLAG GMBH ET KLAUS BEERMANN c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06

  Similarly, States have a broad margin of appreciation in the regulation of speech in commercial matters or advertising (see markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany, 20 November 1989, § 33, Series A no. 165, and Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 50, Series A no. 285-A).

  [45] See markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany, 20 November 1989, § 33, Series A no. 165; Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland, no. 10890/84, § 72, 28 March 1990; Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 50, Series A no. 285 A; Demuth v. Switzerland, no. 38743/97, § 42-43, 5 November 2002; and Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG (no. 3) v. Austria, no. 39069/97, § 30, 11 February 2003.

• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 24645/94

  BUSCARINI ET AUTRES c. SAINT-MARIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06

  In this connection, it should be observed that the freedom of thought, conscience and religion guaranteed by the Convention also entail freedom to hold or not to hold religious beliefs and to practise or not to practise a religion (see Buscarini and Others v. San Marino [GC], no. 24645/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-I).

  [51] See the leading case, Kokkinakis v. Greece, no. 14307/88, § 31, 25 May 1993, and after that Buscarini and Others v. San Marino [GC], no. 24645/94, § 34, ECHR 1999 I.

• EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 38432/97

  THOMA v. LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06

  Pointing out that Article 10 of the Convention also protected the form in which ideas were conveyed (it cited Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 45, ECHR 2001-III), and sharing the opinion of the dissenting judges Rozakis and Vajic, according to whom the authorities" margin of appreciation was narrower when it came to negative obligations (Women On Waves and Others, cited above, § 40), the applicant association argued that there had, in the present case, been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

  Moreover, the Court has always observed in its case-law that it is not its role to cast judgment on the manner in which individuals choose to express themselves, because Article 10 of the Convention also protects the form in which ideas are conveyed (see Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 45, ECHR 2001-III).

• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …
• EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87

  OTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13914/88

  INFORMATIONSVEREIN LENTIA AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 25.03.1985 - 8734/79

  Barthold ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 13936/02

  MANOLE ET AUTRES c. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 24699/94

  VgT VEREIN GEGEN TIERFABRIKEN c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30985/96

  HASSAN ET TCHAOUCH c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 22.05.1990 - 12726/87

  AUTRONIC AG v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 21132/05

  TV Vest AS & Rogaland Pensjonistparti ./. Norwegen
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 41205/98

  TAMMER v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 25576/04

  FLINKKILÄ AND OTHERS v. FINLAND