Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ROJ TV A\/S v. DENMARK

  Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35222/04

  PAVEL IVANOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 24683/14

  Although to achieve that purpose it is not necessary to take away every one of the rights and freedoms guaranteed from groups and persons engaged in activities contrary to the text and spirit of the Convention, the Court has found that the freedoms of religion, expression and association guaranteed by Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention are covered by Article 17 (see, among other authorities, W.P. and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 42264/98, ECHR 2004-VII (extracts); Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Pavel Ivanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007; and Hizb ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, §§ 72-75 and 78, 12 June 2012).

  The Court reached the same conclusion in, for example, Norwood v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI), and Pavel Ivanov v. Russia ((dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007), which concerned the use of freedom of expression for Islamophobic and anti-Semitic purposes respectively.

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 24683/14

  As to the specific question of whether the applicant company's conviction, and the sentence imposed, were in breach of Article 10 of the Convention, the Court recalls that in, for example, Zana v. Turkey (25 November 1997, §§ 52-62, Reports 1997-VII), the Court found no breach of Article 10 for imposing a penalty on the applicant for having expressed his support for the "PKK national liberation movement", while going on to say that he was not "in favour of massacres" and that "Anyone can make mistakes, and the PKK kill women and children by mistake." It was accepted, at that time, that the PKK was a terrorist organisation (ibid., § 58, see also, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, §§ 58-65, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EuGH, 22.09.2011 - C-244/10

  Deutschland kann die Weiterverbreitung von Sendungen in kurdischer Sprache, die …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 24683/14

  In a judgment of 22 September 2011, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) gave a preliminary ruling in the joined cases (C-244/10 and C-245/10) in the light of Directive 89/552/EEC.

 
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 31098/08

  HIZB UT-TAHRIR AND OTHERS v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 24683/14

  Although to achieve that purpose it is not necessary to take away every one of the rights and freedoms guaranteed from groups and persons engaged in activities contrary to the text and spirit of the Convention, the Court has found that the freedoms of religion, expression and association guaranteed by Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention are covered by Article 17 (see, among other authorities, W.P. and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 42264/98, ECHR 2004-VII (extracts); Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Pavel Ivanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007; and Hizb ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, §§ 72-75 and 78, 12 June 2012).
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 23131/03

  NORWOOD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 24683/14

  The Court reached the same conclusion in, for example, Norwood v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI), and Pavel Ivanov v. Russia ((dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007), which concerned the use of freedom of expression for Islamophobic and anti-Semitic purposes respectively.
• EGMR, 01.07.1961 - 332/57

  LAWLESS c. IRLANDE (N° 3)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 24683/14

  The purpose of Article 17, in so far as it refers to groups or to individuals, is to make it impossible for them to derive from the Convention a right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at destroying any of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention; "... therefore, no person may be able to take advantage of the provisions of the Convention to perform acts aimed at destroying the aforesaid rights and freedoms..." (see Lawless v. Ireland, 1 July 1961, § 7, Series A no. 3).
• EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 65831/01

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 24683/14

  Although to achieve that purpose it is not necessary to take away every one of the rights and freedoms guaranteed from groups and persons engaged in activities contrary to the text and spirit of the Convention, the Court has found that the freedoms of religion, expression and association guaranteed by Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention are covered by Article 17 (see, among other authorities, W.P. and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 42264/98, ECHR 2004-VII (extracts); Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Pavel Ivanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007; and Hizb ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, §§ 72-75 and 78, 12 June 2012).
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

  MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 24683/14

  Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role as "public watchdog" (see, among many others, Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 165, 8 November 2016, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 42264/98

  W.P. AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 24683/14

  Although to achieve that purpose it is not necessary to take away every one of the rights and freedoms guaranteed from groups and persons engaged in activities contrary to the text and spirit of the Convention, the Court has found that the freedoms of religion, expression and association guaranteed by Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention are covered by Article 17 (see, among other authorities, W.P. and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 42264/98, ECHR 2004-VII (extracts); Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Pavel Ivanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007; and Hizb ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, §§ 72-75 and 78, 12 June 2012).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 24683/14

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 101, ECHR 2012; Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, § 88, ECHR 2015 (extracts); and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, ECHR 2016).

• EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14

  Udo Pastörs: Holocaust-Leugnung ist in Europa kein Menschenrecht

  The former Commission and the Court have dealt with a number of cases under Articles 10 and/or 17 of the Convention concerning denial of the Holocaust and other statements relating to Nazi crimes and declared them inadmissible, either as being manifestly ill-founded (see recently Williamson v. Germany (dec.), no. 64496/17, 8 January 2019) - relying on Article 17 as an aid in the interpretation of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention and using it to reinforce its conclusion on the necessity of the interference - or as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention in view of Article 17 of the Convention (see Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 209-212, ECHR 2015 (extracts), with further references; see also Roj TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 24683/14, §§ 26-38, 17 April 2018, for an analysis of the case-law concerning Article 17 of the Convention).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 28.02.2019 - C-622/17

  Generalanwalt Saugmandsgaard Øe: Die Richtlinie über audiovisuelle Mediendienste …

  Er weist in diesem Zusammenhang darauf hin, dass die Meinungsfreiheit nicht schrankenlos gilt und dass das Verbot solcher Informationen das Verbot der Verbreitung einer Sendung rechtfertigen kann (vgl. das jüngst ergangene Urteil des EGMR vom 17. April 2018, Roj TV A/S gegen Dänemark, CE:ECHR:2018:0417DEC002468314, Nrn. 37 bis 39, 41 und 42).
• EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 77400/14

  AYOUB ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  La Cour a maintes fois jugé que « l'article 17, pour autant qu'il vise des groupements ou des individus, a pour but de les mettre dans l'impossibilité de tirer de la Convention un droit qui leur permette de se livrer à une activité ou d'accomplir un acte visant à la destruction des droits et libertés reconnus dans la Convention ; qu'ainsi personne ne doit pouvoir se prévaloir des dispositions de la Convention pour se livrer à des actes visant à la destruction des droits et libertés visés (...)'(Lawless c. Irlande, 1er juillet 1961, § 7, série A no 3, et, récemment, Roj TV A/S c. Danemark no 24683/14, § 30, 24 mai 2018).

 
• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 27925/21

  Pablo Hasél

  The grounds on which the applicant's conviction was based, namely combating public praise or justification of terrorism, appear to be both "relevant" and "sufficient" to justify the interference at issue, and in that sense met a pressing social need (see Z.B. v. France, cited above, §§ 65-66, and, mutatis mutandis, ROJ TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 24683/14, § 47, 17 April 2018, and Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, § 48, 3 October 2019).
• EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 11214/19

  INTERNATIONALE HUMANITÄRE HILFSORGANISATION E. V. v. GERMANY

  The Court reiterates that associations which engage in activities contrary to the values of the Convention cannot benefit from the protection of Article 11 interpreted in the light of Article 17, which prohibits the use of the Convention in order to destroy or excessively limit the rights guaranteed by it (see, for an analysis of the case-law, Roj TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 24683/14, §§ 30-38, 17 April 2018).
• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 28000/19

  ROUILLAN c. FRANCE

  Elle note par ailleurs que des propos incitant à l'usage de la violence peuvent même tomber sous l'empire de l'article 17 de la Convention (Roj TV A/S c. Danemark (déc.), no 24683/14, 24 mai 2018).
• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 4493/11

  ATAMANCHUK v. RUSSIA

  If the Court found that the statements made by the applicant were covered by Article 17, then Article 10 would have to be declared inapplicable and the complaint incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention, without there being any need to examine whether the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression was lawful, pursued a legitimate aim, and was proportionate to that aim (see, for example, Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI; Hizb Ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, 12 June 2012, §§ 74-75 and 78; Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, §§ 113-114, 14 November 2013; M"Bala M"Bala v. France (dec.), no. 25239/13, § 42, ECHR 2015 (extracts); Belkacem v. Belgium (dec.), no. 34367/14, § 37, 27 June 2017; and Roj TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 24683/14, §§ 48-49, 17 April 2018).
• EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 63539/19

  ZEMMOUR c. FRANCE

  Appréciation de la Cour 25. La Cour a jugé, à de nombreuses reprises, que « l'article 17, pour autant qu'il vise des groupements ou des individus, a pour but de les mettre dans l'impossibilité de tirer de la Convention un droit qui leur permette de se livrer à une activité ou d'accomplir un acte visant à la destruction des droits et libertés reconnus dans la Convention ; qu'ainsi personne ne doit pouvoir se prévaloir des dispositions de la Convention pour se livrer à des actes visant à la destruction des droits et libertés visés (...)'(Lawless c. Irlande, 1er juillet 1961, § 7, série A no 3, Roj TV A/S c. Danemark (déc.), no 24683/14, § 30, 24 mai 2018, Ayoub et autres c. France, nos 77400/14 and 2 autres, §§ 92 et 96 à 101, 8 octobre 2020).
• EGMR, 02.09.2021 - 46883/15

  Z.B. c. FRANCE

  La Cour renvoie ensuite à sa décision Roj TV A/S c. Danemark ((déc.), no 24683/14, §§ 32-38, 24 mai 2018) pour un résumé des propos ou activités qu'elle a jugé devoir être soustraits, par l'article 17, à la protection de l'article 10 de la Convention, en raison de leur but islamophobe, antisémite, raciste et/ou incitant à la haine et à la violence.
• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 47833/20

  LENIS v. GREECE

  The Court's decision in Roj TV A/S v. Denmark ((dec.), no. 24683/14, §§ 30-38, 24 May 2018) provides a summary of cases in which it has applied Article 17 of the Convention in declaring complaints under Article 10 to be incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention.