Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHORHERR c. AUTRICHE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 57 MRK
  Non-violation de l'Art. 5 Non-violation de l'Art. 10 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHORHERR v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 57 MRK
  No violation of Art. 5 No violation of Art. 10 (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 01.03.1991 - 13308/87
• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87

Wird zitiert von ... (37)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

  BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87

  The Court reiterates that "by "reservation of a general character" in Article 64 (art. 64) is meant in particular a reservation couched in terms that are too vague or broad for it to be possible to determine their exact meaning and scope" (see the Belilos v. Switzerland judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, p. 26, para. 55).

  According to the Court's case-law, the "brief statement" as required by that provision "both constitutes an evidential factor and contributes to legal certainty"; its purpose "is to provide a guarantee - in particular for the other Contracting Parties and the Convention institutions - that a reservation does not go beyond the provisions expressly excluded by the State concerned" (see the Belilos judgment, cited above, Series A no. 132, pp. 27-28, para. 59, and the Weber v. Switzerland judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 177, p. 19, para. 38).

  This was the situation in the Belilos v. Switzerland case (judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132) among others.

• EGMR, 21.06.1988 - 10126/82

  Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87

  They invoked, inter alia, the positive duties that Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention entailed for the State (see the Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v. Austria judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 139, p. 12, para. 32).

  That margin of appreciation extends in particular to the choice of the - reasonable and appropriate - means to be used by the authorities to ensure that lawful manifestations can take place peacefully (see, mutatis mutandis, the Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" judgment, cited above, Series A no. 139, p. 12, para. 34).

• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 10890/84

  GROPPERA RADIO AG ET AUTRES c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87

  The Court reiterates that the level of precision required of the domestic legislation - which cannot in any case provide for every eventuality - depends to a considerable degree on the content of the instrument considered, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed (see, inter alia, the following judgments: Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 33, para. 88; Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland, 28 March 1990, Series A no. 173, p. 26, para. 68; and Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244, p. 27, para. 89).

  The Court has consistently held that the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent an interference is necessary, but this margin goes hand in hand with European supervision embracing both the legislation and the decisions applying it; when carrying out that supervision the Court must ascertain whether the impugned measures are "proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued", due regard being had to the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society (see, among other authorities, the following judgments: Barfod v. Denmark, 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149, p. 12, para. 28; Groppera Radio AG and Others, cited above, Series A no. 173, p. 28, para. 72; and Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, p. 30, para. 59).

 
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87

  Its wording was, he argued, too general and made it impossible "to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail" (see the Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 31, para.
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12945/87

  HADJIANASTASSIOU v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87

  Furthermore it is primarily for the national authorities to interpret and apply domestic law (see, among other authorities, the Hadjianastassiou v. Greece judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 252, p. 18, para. 42).
• EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11508/85

  BARFOD c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87

  The Court has consistently held that the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent an interference is necessary, but this margin goes hand in hand with European supervision embracing both the legislation and the decisions applying it; when carrying out that supervision the Court must ascertain whether the impugned measures are "proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued", due regard being had to the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society (see, among other authorities, the following judgments: Barfod v. Denmark, 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149, p. 12, para. 28; Groppera Radio AG and Others, cited above, Series A no. 173, p. 28, para. 72; and Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, p. 30, para. 59).
• EGMR, 25.02.1982 - 7511/76

  CAMPBELL ET COSANS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87

  It should be added that the provisions to which the reservation applied in this case were all in force on 3 September 1958, when Austria ratified the Convention (see paragraph 13 above), namely sections VIII and IX(1) of the Introductory Law and sections 35 and 36 (1) of the Law on Administrative Offences (see paragraph 12 above and also, mutatis mutandis, the Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 February 1982, Series A no. 48, p. 17, para. 37).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87

  The Court reiterates that the level of precision required of the domestic legislation - which cannot in any case provide for every eventuality - depends to a considerable degree on the content of the instrument considered, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed (see, inter alia, the following judgments: Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 33, para. 88; Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland, 28 March 1990, Series A no. 173, p. 26, para. 68; and Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244, p. 27, para. 89).
• EGMR, 22.05.1990 - 11034/84

  WEBER c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87

  According to the Court's case-law, the "brief statement" as required by that provision "both constitutes an evidential factor and contributes to legal certainty"; its purpose "is to provide a guarantee - in particular for the other Contracting Parties and the Convention institutions - that a reservation does not go beyond the provisions expressly excluded by the State concerned" (see the Belilos judgment, cited above, Series A no. 132, pp. 27-28, para. 59, and the Weber v. Switzerland judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 177, p. 19, para. 38).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87

  The Court has consistently held that the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent an interference is necessary, but this margin goes hand in hand with European supervision embracing both the legislation and the decisions applying it; when carrying out that supervision the Court must ascertain whether the impugned measures are "proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued", due regard being had to the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society (see, among other authorities, the following judgments: Barfod v. Denmark, 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149, p. 12, para. 28; Groppera Radio AG and Others, cited above, Series A no. 173, p. 28, para. 72; and Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, p. 30, para. 59).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 27510/08

  Leugnung des Völkermords an Armeniern von Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt

  The Swiss Government did not provide any details in respect of that, and there is no evidence that confrontations had in fact taken place at those rallies (contrast, mutatis mutandis, Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v. Austria, 21 June 1988, §§ 12-13, 19 and 37-38, Series A no. 139, and Chorherr v. Austria, 25 August 1993, §§ 7-8 and 28, Series A no. 266-B).
• EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87

  OTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT v. AUSTRIA

  The Court reiterates that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply national law (see, as the most recent authority, the Chorherr v. Austria judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-B, p. 36, para. 25).
• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90

  GRADINGER c. AUTRICHE

  The Court points out that in the Chorherr v. Austria judgment of 25 August 1993 it held that Austria's reservation in respect of Article 5 (art. 5) of the Convention was compatible with Article 64 (art. 64) (Series A no. 266-B, p. 35, para. 21).

 
• EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 18640/10

  GRANDE STEVENS AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  However, a reservation which does not refer to or mention those specific provision of the Italian legal order which exclude offences or proceedings from the scope of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 does not afford to a sufficient degree a guarantee that [it] does not go beyond the provision expressly excluded by the Contracting State (see, mutatis mutandis, Chorherr v. Austria, 25 August 1993, § 20, Series A no. 266-B; Gradinger v. Austria, 23 October 1995, § 51, Series A no. 328-C; and Eisenstecken, cited above, § 29; see also, in contrast, Kozlova and Smirnova v. Latvia (dec.), no. 57381/00, ECHR 2001-XI).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 25390/94

  REKVÉNYI c. HONGRIE

  As has been recalled many times in the Court's case-law, it is primarily for the national authorities to interpret and apply domestic law (see, for example, the Chorherr v. Austria judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-B, pp. 35-36, § 25).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90

  FISCHER c. AUTRICHE

  89; the Chorherr v. Austria judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-B, pp.
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 75909/01

  Sud Fondi S.r.l. u.a. ./. Italien

  Elles devaient être claires pour les requérantes, vu qu'elles ne sont pas assimilables à un citadin quelconque mais sont des professionnels de la construction et donc une diligence spéciale pouvait être attendue d'elles (Chorherr c. Autriche, 25 août 1993, § 25, série A no 266-B ; Open Door et Dublin Well Woman c. Irlande, 29 octobre 1992, § 60, série A no 246-A).
• EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10

  KARASTELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  It is also pertinent to reiterate, in view of the context being examined in the present case, that protests, including actions taking the form of physically impeding certain activities, can constitute expressions of opinion within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention (see Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 92, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 28, ECHR 1999-VIII; Lucas v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39013/02, 18 March 2003; Açik and Others v. Turkey, no. 31451/03, § 40, 13 January 2009; Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, §§ 69-71, 15 May 2014; and S?‚omka v. Poland, no. 68924/12, § 58, 6 December 2018; see also Chorherr v. Austria, 25 August 1993, §§ 7-8 and 23, Series A no. 266-B; Barraco v. France, no. 31684/05, §§ 26-27, 5 March 2009; and Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 20-22 and 85-86, ECHR 2015).

  In the case of Chorherr v. Austria (25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-B), the Court also concluded that there had been no violation of Article 10. A military ceremony was held in the Rathausplatz in Vienna to mark the thirtieth anniversary of Austrian neutrality and the fortieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War.

• EGMR, 19.12.1994 - 15153/89

  VEREINIGUNG DEMOKRATISCHER SOLDATEN ÖSTERREICHS AND GUBI v. AUSTRIA

  Il échet toutefois de rappeler que le niveau de précision requis de la législation interne - laquelle ne saurait du reste parer à toute éventualité - dépend dans une large mesure du texte considéré, du domaine qu'il couvre ainsi que du nombre et de la qualité de ses destinataires (voir, en dernier lieu, l'arrêt Chorherr c. Autriche du 25 août 1993, série A no 266-B, pp. 35-36, par. 25).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 25594/94

  HASHMAN AND HARRUP v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Government disagreed with the Commission's conclusion that there was no objective element to help a citizen regulate his conduct: they pointed to the Chorherr case, where an administrative offence of causing "a breach of the peace by conduct likely to cause annoyance" fell within the scope of the concept of "prescribed by law" (Chorherr v. Austria judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-B, pp. 35-36, § 25).

  It has pointed out also that "it is primarily for the national authorities to interpret and apply domestic law" (see the Chorherr v. Austria judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-B, pp. 35-36, § 25).

• EGMR, 29.08.1997 - 22714/93

  WORM c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 56422/09

  SCHÄDLER-EBERLE v. LIECHTENSTEIN
• EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 29477/95

  EISENSTECKEN c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 23.09.1998 - 24838/94

  STEEL AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 36773/97

  NACHTMANN v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 2913/06

  MUNJAZ v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 06.03.2007 - 73333/01

  ÇILOGLU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 09.02.1995 - 16616/90

  VERENIGING WEEKBLAD BLUF! v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15523/89

  SCHMAUTZER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 30.08.2007 - 75909/01

  SUD FONDI SRL ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15527/89

  UMLAUFT c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 16718/90

  PALAORO v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 37586/06

  LIEPAJNIEKS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 68294/01

  KANDZHOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 14.02.2004 - 63151/00

  STECK-RISCH and OTHERS v. LIECHTENSTEIN
• EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 57381/00

  KOZLOVA ET SMIRNOVA contre la LETTONIE
• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 16713/90

  PRAMSTALLER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 16841/90

  PFARRMEIER c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 46479/10

  BENAVENT DÍAZ c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 34364/08

  DILEK ASLAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 23001/08

  MATIC AND POLONIA DOO v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 22707/05

  BULGARU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 42434/98

  MUT contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 31451/03

  AÇIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 11.01.2001 - 32213/96

  NICOL and SELVANAYAGAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 06.04.1994 - 16412/90

  M.G. v. AUSTRIA
• EKMR, 13.10.1993 - 18116/91

  HAUER AND GUGGENHEIM v. AUSTRIA