Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2013,36392
EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08 (https://dejure.org/2013,36392)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.12.2013 - 27510/08 (https://dejure.org/2013,36392)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. Dezember 2013 - 27510/08 (https://dejure.org/2013,36392)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,36392) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PERINÇEK c. SUISSE

    Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
    Partiellement irrecevable Violation de l'article 10 - Liberté d'expression-Générale (Article 10-1 - Liberté d'expression) Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PERINÇEK v. SWITZERLAND

    Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

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

    [DEU] Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (4)

  • internet-law.de (Kurzinformation)

    Leugnung des Völkermords an den Armeniern kann von Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt sein

  • zeit.de (Pressebericht, 18.12.2013)

    Leugnung des Völkermords an Armeniern fällt unter Meinungsfreiheit

  • lto.de (Kurzinformation)

    Meinungsfreiheit - Völkermord an Armeniern darf geleugnet werden

  • RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Besprechungen u.ä.

  • juwiss.de (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

    Befremdliches aus Strassburg: EGMR erlaubt Leugnen des Armenier-Genozids

Sonstiges (3)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (42)

  • EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 2668/07

    DINK c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08
    In Dink v. Turkey (nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, 14 September 2010) the applicant was found guilty of denigrating "Turkishness" (Türklük).

    This is how we read the Dink v. Turkey judgment (nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, 14 September 2010).

  • EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08

    FÁBER v. HUNGARY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08
    Under particular circumstances (see, conversely, Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, 24 July 2012) such remarks, combined with negationist discourse, might have resulted in a clear and present danger of incitement to hatred, the standard applied by the Court in similar cases for finding that the interference of the criminal law was proportionate (see Gül and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870/02, § 42, 8 June 2010).

    [36] See Judge Pinto de Albuquerque's separate opinion in Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, 24 July 2012.

  • AG Bad Hersfeld, 28.10.1997 - C 736/97
    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08
    [13] See communication No. 736/97, Ross v. Canada, Views adopted on 18 October 2000.

    [18] See communication No. 736/97, Ross v. Canada, Views adopted on 18 October 2000.

     
  • EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

    JERSILD v. DENMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08
    The Court draws attention to the vital importance of combating racial discrimination in all its forms and manifestations (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 30, Series A no. 298).

    The present case was thus to be distinguished from the situation examined by the Court in Jersild v. Denmark (23 September 1994, Series A no. 298), in which the applicant had not made the objectionable statements himself (ibid., § 31) and his news report could not objectively have appeared to have as its purpose the propagation of racist views and ideas (ibid., § 33).

  • EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 65831/01

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08
    Thus, in the case of Garaudy v. France ((dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)), which concerned, inter alia, the conviction for denial of crimes against humanity of the author of a book that systematically disputed such crimes perpetrated by the Nazis against the Jewish community, the Court found the applicant's Article 10 complaint incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.

    [41] Corresponding to an "established historical fact", to use the Court's expression (see Lehideux and Isorni v. France, 23 September 1998, § 47, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII, and Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX).

  • EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 15615/07

    FERET c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08
    Political speeches that stir up hatred based on religious, ethnic or cultural prejudices represent a threat to social peace and political stability in democratic States (see Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, § 73, 16 July 2009).

    See Judge Pinto de Albuquerque's separate opinion in Vona, cited above; and also Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, §§ 75-76, 16 July 2009, and CERD Communication no. 34/2004, § 7.5, Communication no. 43/2008, § 7.6, and Communication no. 48/2010, § 8.4.

  • EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

    Radikalenerlaß

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08
    The level of precision required of domestic legislation - which cannot in any case provide for every eventuality - depends to a considerable degree on the content of the law in question, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed (see Rekvényi, cited above, § 34, and Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 48, Series A no. 323).
  • BVerfG, 13.04.1994 - 1 BvR 23/94

    Auschwitzlüge

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08
    [43] To this effect, see the German Federal Constitutional Court's judgments of 13 April 1994 (1 BvR 23/94, § 34), 25 March 2008 (1 BvR 1753/03, § 43), and 9 November 2011 (1 BvR 461/08, § 22), on the lack of protection of the "Auschwitz lie" (Auschwitzlüge) under the freedom of expression; the Canadian Supreme Court in R. v. Keegstra (1996), 3 SCR 667, on the applicability of the offence of promoting racist hate propaganda, set out in section 319 (2) of the Canadian Criminal Code, to the defendant's anti-Semitic statements, including his Holocaust denial; and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), General Recommendation no. 35, 26 September 2013, § 14. It should be stressed that the CERD does not require that genocide or crimes against humanity be established by a final decision of an international or national court.
  • BVerfG, 09.11.2011 - 1 BvR 461/08

    Meinungsfreiheit; Tatsachenbehauptung; Werturteil; allgemeines Gesetz; …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08
    [43] To this effect, see the German Federal Constitutional Court's judgments of 13 April 1994 (1 BvR 23/94, § 34), 25 March 2008 (1 BvR 1753/03, § 43), and 9 November 2011 (1 BvR 461/08, § 22), on the lack of protection of the "Auschwitz lie" (Auschwitzlüge) under the freedom of expression; the Canadian Supreme Court in R. v. Keegstra (1996), 3 SCR 667, on the applicability of the offence of promoting racist hate propaganda, set out in section 319 (2) of the Canadian Criminal Code, to the defendant's anti-Semitic statements, including his Holocaust denial; and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), General Recommendation no. 35, 26 September 2013, § 14. It should be stressed that the CERD does not require that genocide or crimes against humanity be established by a final decision of an international or national court.
  • EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

    SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08
    Accordingly, many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague and whose interpretation and application are questions of practice (see Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-III; Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 49, Series A no. 30; and Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 40, Series A no. 260-A).
  • EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

    KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE

  • BVerfG, 25.03.2008 - 1 BvR 1753/03

    Volksverhetzung durch rechtsextremistische Liedtexte

  • EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

    ROTARU v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

    Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  • EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

    WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  • EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 35071/97

    GUNDUZ v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 24699/94

    VgT VEREIN GEGEN TIERFABRIKEN c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

    KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00

    ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 7485/03

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

  • EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 10890/84

    GROPPERA RADIO AG ET AUTRES c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

    CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  • EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

    THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  • EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

    MAESTRI c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 36109/03

    LEROY c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 35943/10

    VONA v. HUNGARY

  • EGMR, 01.02.2000 - 32307/96

    SCHIMANEK v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 12750/87

    PHILIS v. GREECE

  • EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 73604/01

    Monnat / Schweiz "L´honneur perdu de la Suisse"

  • EGMR, 29.05.2007 - 26870/04

    D. K. gegen Deutschland

  • EGMR, 31.01.2006 - 64016/00

    GINIEWSKI c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 26229/95

    GAWEDA v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 20.04.1999 - 41448/98

    WITZSCH v. GERMANY

  • EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 2933/03

    COX v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 28.09.2000 - 37698/97

    LOPES GOMES DA SILVA c. PORTUGAL

  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 25067/94

    ERDOGDU ET INCE c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 16637/06

    MOLNAR c. ROUMANIE

  • KreisG Eisenach, 27.05.1992 - C 29/92
  • EGMR, 01.07.1961 - 332/57

    LAWLESS c. IRLANDE (N° 3)

  • EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 23131/03

    NORWOOD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35222/04

    PAVEL IVANOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 20985/05

    ORBAN ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht