Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RABCZEWSKA v. POLAND

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

• doev.de

  Rabczewska/Polen - Verurteilung wegen Blasphemie

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• spiegel.de (Pressemeldung, 15.09.2022)

  Blasphemie-Urteil gegen polnische Sängerin nicht rechtens

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RABCZEWSKA v. POLAND

  Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• afp 2022, 491

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87

  OTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 8257/13

  They must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs and even the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to their faith (see Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 20 September 1994, § 47, Series A no. 295-A; .A. v. Turkey, no. 42571/98, § 28, ECHR 2005-VIII; and Aydin Tatlav v. Turkey, no. 50692/99, § 27, 2 May 2006).

  By contrasting the approach in the present case to that of the Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria (20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A) caselaw, one notes that a similar reversal of the internal balance of Article 10 was avoided therein: in the crucially important judgment in Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland (29 October 1992, Series A no. 246-A), the Court refused to include the right to life (Article 2) within the meaning of "protection of the rights of others".

  2. The instant case bears similarities to the cases of Otto-Preminger- Institut v. Austria (20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A) and Wingrove v. the United Kingdom (25 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V), as well as to .A. v. Turkey (no. 42571/98, ECHR 2005-VIII), and E.S. v. Austria (no. 38450/12, 25 October 2018), in which the Court found no violations of Article 10. At the same time, it differs considerably from cases such as Tagiyev and Huseynov v. Azerbaijan, (no. 13274/08, 5 December 2019), where the sanction was clearly disproportionate.

• EGMR, 25.10.2018 - 38450/12

  Kritik am Propheten Mohammed: Nicht nur was man sagt, sondern auch in welcher …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 8257/13

  States have the positive obligation under Article 9 of the Convention of ensuring the peaceful coexistence of all religions and those not belonging to a religious group by ensuring mutual tolerance (see E.S. v. Austria, no. 38450/12, § 44, 25 October 2018; see also Leyla ahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, §§ 107-08, ECHR 2005-XI, and S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, §§ 123-28, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).

  Nevertheless, the judgments in Otto-Preminger-Institut and Wingrove v. the United Kingdom (25 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V) (quoted in paragraphs 51 and 52 of the present judgment, and in paragraphs 44 and 46 of the pertinent E.S. v. Austria judgment (no. 38450/12, § 44, 25 October 2018) are old, dating from 1994 and 1996 respectively, and contain strong dissenting opinions.

  2. The instant case bears similarities to the cases of Otto-Preminger- Institut v. Austria (20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A) and Wingrove v. the United Kingdom (25 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V), as well as to .A. v. Turkey (no. 42571/98, ECHR 2005-VIII), and E.S. v. Austria (no. 38450/12, 25 October 2018), in which the Court found no violations of Article 10. At the same time, it differs considerably from cases such as Tagiyev and Huseynov v. Azerbaijan, (no. 13274/08, 5 December 2019), where the sanction was clearly disproportionate.

• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 13274/08

  TAGIYEV AND HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 8257/13

  However, where such expressions go beyond the limits of a critical denial of other people's religious beliefs and are likely to incite religious intolerance, for example in the event of an improper or even abusive attack on an object of religious veneration, a State may legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures (see Tagiyev and Huseynov v. Azerbaijan, no. 13274/08, § 37, 5 December 2019; OttoPremingerInstitut, cited above, § 47; and .A. v. Turkey, cited above, § 29).

  2. The instant case bears similarities to the cases of Otto-Preminger- Institut v. Austria (20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A) and Wingrove v. the United Kingdom (25 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V), as well as to .A. v. Turkey (no. 42571/98, ECHR 2005-VIII), and E.S. v. Austria (no. 38450/12, 25 October 2018), in which the Court found no violations of Article 10. At the same time, it differs considerably from cases such as Tagiyev and Huseynov v. Azerbaijan, (no. 13274/08, 5 December 2019), where the sanction was clearly disproportionate.

 
• EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 3532/07

  ORTHODOX OHRID ARCHDIOCESE v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 8257/13

  As a result, religious peace and the harmonious coexistence of various beliefs and philosophical convictions may be undermined (compare Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, §§ 92-93, ECHR 2004-I, and "Orthodox Ohrid Archdiocese (Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archdiocese of the Pe Patriarchy)" v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 3532/07, § 95, 16 November 2017).
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 29335/13

  BEHAR AND GUTMAN v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 8257/13

  They could legitimately be perceived by these religious groups as severely impacting the dignity, sense of identity and feelings of selfworth and selfconfidence of the members of those groups (compare Aksu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 4149/04 and 41029/04, § 58 ECHR 2012; Király and Dömötör v. Hungary, no. 10851/13, § 41, 17 January 2017; and Behar and Gutman v. Bulgaria, no. 29335/13, § 65, 16 February 2021).
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 10851/13

  KIRÁLY AND DÖMÖTÖR v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 8257/13

  They could legitimately be perceived by these religious groups as severely impacting the dignity, sense of identity and feelings of selfworth and selfconfidence of the members of those groups (compare Aksu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 4149/04 and 41029/04, § 58 ECHR 2012; Király and Dömötör v. Hungary, no. 10851/13, § 41, 17 January 2017; and Behar and Gutman v. Bulgaria, no. 29335/13, § 65, 16 February 2021).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 8257/13

  The Court's assessment (a) General principles 46. The Court reiterates the fundamental principles underlying its judgments relating to Article 10 as set out in, for example, Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, Series A no. 24) and Fressoz and Roire v. France ([GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93

  OZGUR GUNDEM c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 8257/13

  49. The Court has repeatedly held that, although the essential object of many provisions of the Convention is to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by public authorities, there may in addition be positive obligations inherent in an effective respect of the rights concerned (see Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 42, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 8257/13

  48. The Court reiterates furthermore that, as enshrined in Article 9 of the Convention, freedom of thought, conscience and religion is one of the foundations of a "democratic society" within the meaning of the Convention (see Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 31, Series A no. 260-A, and Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 52435/99, § 77, 12 April 2007).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11

  Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 8257/13

  States have the positive obligation under Article 9 of the Convention of ensuring the peaceful coexistence of all religions and those not belonging to a religious group by ensuring mutual tolerance (see E.S. v. Austria, no. 38450/12, § 44, 25 October 2018; see also Leyla ahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, §§ 107-08, ECHR 2005-XI, and S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, §§ 123-28, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 44179/98

  MURPHY v. IRELAND
• EKMR, 06.09.1989 - 12242/86

  ROMMELFANGER c. ALLEMAGNE
• EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88

  OPEN DOOR AND DUBLIN WELL WOMAN v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 18136/02

  Kündigung einer bei der evangelischen Kirche angestellten Kindergärtnerin wegen …
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 35071/97

  GUNDUZ v. TURKEY