Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
FÁBER v. HUNGARY
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) read in the light of Article 11 - (Art. 11) Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly) (englisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
FÁBER v. HUNGARY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) read in the light of Article 11 - (Art. 11) Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Non-pecuniary damage - award ...
Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)
- lehofer.at (Kurzinformation)
EGMR zu verbotenen politischen Symbolen
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (45) Neu Zitiert selbst (24)
- EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 76900/01
ÖLLINGER c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08
In this connection the Court emphasises that it is only by a careful examination of the context (see Öllinger v. Austria, no. 76900/01, § 47, ECHR 2006-IX), that one can draw a meaningful distinction between shocking and offensive language which is protected by Article 10 and that which forfeits its right to tolerance in a democratic society (see Vajnai v. Hungary, no. 33629/06, § 53, ECHR-2008).Having regard to the above considerations, the Court finds that no separate examination is warranted under these Articles (see, mutatis mutandis, Öllinger v. Austria, no. 76900/01, §§ 52 and 53, ECHR 2006-IX).
In particular, a counter-demonstration must not be prohibited for the sole purpose of protecting the first demonstration (see Öllinger v. Austria, 26 June 2006, no. 76900/01, § 36).
[12] See, for the consideration of a similar set of circumstances, Öllinger v. Austria, no. 76900/01, § 47, ECHR 2006-IX.
- EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 29459/10
FRATANOLO v. HUNGARY
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08
I voted along with the majority in this case mostly because, as a disciplined judge, I felt bound by the Court's previous rulings in Vajnai (Vajnai v. Hungary, app. no. 33629/06), being the leading case, as well as in Fratanolo (Fratanolo v. Hungary, app no. 29459/10), the case in which I was on the bench.[3] On political symbols in the Court's case-law, see Vajnai v. Hungary, no. 33629/06, ECHR 2008, and Fratanoló v. Hungary, no. 29459/10, 3 November 2011.
- EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 65831/01
Schutz der Infragestellung der von den Nazis am jüdischen Volk begangenen …
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08
Similar considerations apply if the expression, because of its timing and place, amounts to the glorification of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide (see Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).[10] In the Court's case-law a distinction is made between "established historical facts", which cannot be disputed and may form a ground for restriction of expression, and an ongoing debate on historical facts, which allows for unrestricted expression (for examples of "established historical facts", such as the Holocaust, see Lehideux and Isorni v. France, 23 September 1998, no. 24662/94, § 47, Reports 1998-VII, and Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX, and for examples of ongoing debates on historical facts, see Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, § 87, 22 April 2010; Karsai v. Hungary, no. 5380/07, § 35, 1 December 2009; and Giniewski v. France, no. 64016/00,§§ 50-51, ECHR 2006-I).
- EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29221/95
STANKOV AND THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08
Furthermore, freedom of assembly as enshrined in Article 11 of the Convention protects a demonstration that may annoy or cause offence to persons opposed to the ideas or claims that it is seeking to promote (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX).A demonstration or other forms of expression may annoy or cause offence to persons opposed to it (see Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v. Austria, cited above, § 32, and Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, 2 October 2001, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 86) or even shock (see, for example, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24; Gerger v Turkey [GC], 8 July 1999, no. 24919/94, § 46; and Monnat v. Switzerland, 21 September 2006, no. 73604/01, § 63).
- EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29225/95
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08
Furthermore, freedom of assembly as enshrined in Article 11 of the Convention protects a demonstration that may annoy or cause offence to persons opposed to the ideas or claims that it is seeking to promote (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX).A demonstration or other forms of expression may annoy or cause offence to persons opposed to it (see Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v. Austria, cited above, § 32, and Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, 2 October 2001, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 86) or even shock (see, for example, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24; Gerger v Turkey [GC], 8 July 1999, no. 24919/94, § 46; and Monnat v. Switzerland, 21 September 2006, no. 73604/01, § 63).
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95
SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08
Furthermore, the Court stresses that there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on the debate of questions of public interest (see, e.g., Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-VIII; Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).However, even assuming that some demonstrators may have considered the flag as offensive, shocking, or even "fascist", for the Court, its mere display was not capable of disturbing public order or hampering the exercise of the demonstrators" right to assemble as it was neither intimidating, nor capable of inciting to violence by instilling a deep-seated and irrational hatred against identifiable persons (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-IV).
- EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 27058/05
DOGRU c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 20.04.1999 - 41448/98
WITZSCH v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08
Moreover, where the applicant expresses contempt for the victims of a totalitarian regime as such, this may amount - in application of Article 17 of the Convention - to an abuse of Convention rights (see Witzsch v. Germany (dec.), no. 41448/98, 20 April 1999). - EKMR, 06.03.1989 - 13079/87
G. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08
The guarantees of Article 11 of the Convention apply to all assemblies except those where the organisers and participants have violent intentions or otherwise deny the foundations of a "democratic society" (see G. v. Germany, no. 13079/87, Commission decision of 6 March 1989, Decisions and Reports (DR) 60, p. 256; Christians against Racism and Fascism v. the United Kingdom, Commission decision of 16 July 1980, DR 21, p. 138). - EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 25691/04
BUKTA ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08
However, in similar circumstances the Court does not take additional, ex post facto justifications offered by the Government into consideration (see Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III). - EGMR, 21.06.1988 - 10126/82
Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" ./. Österreich
- EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 10877/04
SERGEY KUZNETSOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 4916/07
Alexejew ./. Russland
- EGMR, 17.10.1986 - 9532/81
REES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 44438/08
VAJNAI (II) v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72
HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 31.01.2006 - 64016/00
GINIEWSKI c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80
ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 23.09.1998 - 24662/94
LEHIDEUX AND ISORNI v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 40984/07
FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 5380/07
KARSAI c. HONGRIE
- EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95
FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE
- EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88
OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85
Oberschlick ./. Österreich
- EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 27510/08
Leugnung des Völkermords an Armeniern von Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt
Another factor has been whether the statements, fairly construed and seen in their immediate or wider context, could be seen as a direct or indirect call for violence or as a justification of violence, hatred or intolerance (see, among other authorities, Incal v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 50, Reports 1998-IV; Sürek (no. 1), cited above, § 62; Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 64, ECHR 2000-III; Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, §§ 48 and 51, ECHR 2003-XI; Soulas and Others, cited above, §§ 39-41 and 43; Balsyte-Lideikiene, cited above, §§ 79-80; Féret, cited above, §§ 69-73 and 78; Hizb ut-Tahrir and Others, cited above, § 73; Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov, cited above, §§ 107-12; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, §§ 52 and 56-58, 24 July 2012; and Vona, cited above, §§ 64-67). - EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12
Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny
It appears that the nuisance caused by the applicant and his fellow protestors caused a certain disruption to ordinary life but did not in the concrete circumstances exceed that level of minor disturbance that follows from normal exercise of the right of peaceful assembly in a public place (see Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 47, 24 July 2012; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 37, ECHR 2007-III; cf. Kudrevicius and Others, cited above, §§ 149, 164-75).See, for example, about revisionism, Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, 24 June 2003; Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, ECHR 2015 (extracts), promoting totalitarian ideas; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, 24 July 2012, hate speech; Norwood v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI, incitement to violence; and Hizb Ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, 12 June 2012.
- EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08
Leugnung des Völkermords an den Armeniern kann von Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt sein
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.
- EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 37553/05
KUDREVICIUS ET AUTRES c. LITUANIE
At the same time, notwithstanding its autonomous role and particular sphere of application, Article 11 must also be considered in the light of Article 10, where the aim of the exercise of freedom of assembly is the expression of personal opinions (see Ezelin, cited above, § 37; Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey [GC], no. 23885/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-VIII; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 41, 24 July 2012; and Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, § 62, 31 July 2014), as well as the need to secure a forum for public debate and the open expression of protest (see Éva Molnár v. Hungary, no. 10346/05, § 42, 7 October 2008). - EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 76204/11
NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA
In particular, where irregular demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (ibid., § 42; see also see Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012; Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 136-37, 30 May 2013, and Kasparov, cited above, § 91).1, paragraph 34; see also, finally, the opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque in Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, 24 July 2012, reiterated in the opinion of Judges Raimondi, Jociene and Pinto de Albuquerque in Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania, no. 37553/05, 26 November 2013, the opinion of Judges Pinto de Albuquerque, Turkovic and Dedov in Taranenko, cited above, and the opinion of Judges Pinto de Albuquerque and Turkovic, in Primov and Others, cited above).
- EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12
Mariya Alekhina u.a. ./. Russland - "Pussy Riot"-Urteil verletzt Meinungsfreiheit
Another factor has been whether the statements, fairly construed and seen in their immediate or wider context, could be seen as a direct or indirect call for violence or as a justification of violence, hatred or intolerance (see, among other authorities, Incal v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 50, Reports 1998-IV; Sürek (no. 1), cited above, § 62; Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 64, ECHR 2000-III; Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, §§ 48 and 51, ECHR 2003-XI; Soulas and Others, cited above, §§ 39-41 and 43; Balsyte-Lideikiene, cited above, §§ 79-80; Féret, cited above, §§ 69-73 and 78; Hizb ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, § 73, 12 June 2012; Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov, cited above, §§ 107-12; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, §§ 52 and 56-58, 24 July 2012; and Vona v. Hungary, no. 35943/10, §§ 64-67, ECHR 2013). - EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 35943/10
VONA v. HUNGARY
Voir mon opinion dissidente jointe à l'arrêt Fáber c. Hongrie, no 40721/08, 24 juillet 2012. - EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 9157/08
MANANNIKOV v. RUSSIA
For a summary of the relevant general principles, see Fáber v. Hungary (no. 40721/08, §§ 32-41, 24 July 2012).We would like to emphasise that the Court has consistently underlined "the importance of the right to counter-demonstration, which could be held at the same time and venue [as] a demonstration (see, for example, Öllinger v. Austria, no. 76900/01, § 44, ECHR 2006-IX; and Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, §§ 42-44, 24 July 2012)"; see paragraph 33 of the present judgment.
In Fáber v. Hungary (no. 40721/08, § 43, 24 July 2012), the Court considered that the State had had a positive obligation to protect the right of assembly of both demonstrating groups by identifying the least restrictive means that would, in principle, enable both demonstrations to take place.
- EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 73235/12
IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
In that context, it has held that although individual interests must on occasion be subordinated to those of a group, democracy does not simply mean that the views of the majority must always prevail: a balance must be achieved which ensures the fair and proper treatment of minorities and avoids any abuse of a dominant position (see Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom, 13 August 1981, Series A no. 44, p. 25, § 63; Sørensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark [GC], nos. 52562/99 and 52620/99, § 58, ECHR 2006-I, and Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, §§ 37-41, 24 July 2012). - EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 21613/07
KASPAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
In particular, where irregular demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (ibid., § 42; see also Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012, and Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012). - EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 931/13
Keine Verletzung des Rechts auf Meinungsäußerung durch Verbot der …
- EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 29680/05
DILIPAK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04
MALOFEYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 51168/15
Spanien: Foto des Königspaares verbrannt - Strafe unzulässig
- EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 29580/12
NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 2653/13
YAROSLAV BELOUSOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 77400/14
AYOUB ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 27585/13
UNITED CIVIL AVIATION TRADE UNION AND CSORBA v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9540/07
MURAT VURAL v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 48694/10
ÇIÇEK ET AUTRES c. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 36658/18
ZHABLYANOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25501/07
NOVIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 60087/10
ÖGRÜ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 18079/15
BUMBES v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 1759/08
KABOGLU ET ORAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 20347/07
EGITIM VE BILIM EMEKÇILERI SENDIKASI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 37553/05
KUDREVICIUS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 05.05.2020 - 71314/13
CSISZER ET CSIBI c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 10851/13
KIRÁLY AND DÖMÖTÖR v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 60259/11
GAFGAZ MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 46712/15
BERKMAN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 75734/12
RAZVOZZHAYEV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE AND UDALTSOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 69234/11
IBRAHIMOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 71977/12
NAGIBIN AND RYAZANTSEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51988/07
KASPAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 42878/05
SOLARI c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR - 54936/20 (anhängig)
SERBIAN-CHINESE FRIENDSHIP SOCIETY FDH v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 68537/13
IBRAGIMOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 41462/17
LAGUNA GUZMAN v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 50495/08
ALTINTAS c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 19620/12
AKARSUBASI ET ALÇIÇEK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR - 34550/15 (anhängig)
GABRIAC ET JEUNESSES NATIONALISTES c. FRANCE
- EGMR - 34532/15 (anhängig)
BENEDETTI ET OEUVRE FRANCAISE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 39696/12
SEMENOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 48564/11
YUFRYAKOV v. RUSSIA