Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 25.10.2018 - 38450/12 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
E.S. v. AUSTRIA
No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (englisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
E.S. v. AUSTRIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)
Besprechungen u.ä. (2)
- verfassungsblog.de (Entscheidungsbesprechung)
Toleranz ja! Aber gegenüber wem? Der österreichische Blasphemiestraftatbestand vor dem EGMR
- zeitschrift-jse.de (Fallmäßige Aufbereitung - für Studienzwecke)
Bezeichnung des Propheten Mohammed als "pädophil"
Sonstiges
Papierfundstellen
- afp 2019, 312
Wird zitiert von ... (6) Neu Zitiert selbst (12)
- EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95
FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2018 - 38450/12
As the Court has noted in previous cases, the difference lies in the degree of factual proof which has to be established (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 43, ECHR 2001-II; Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, §§ 73-76, ECHR 2001 VIII; and Genner v. Austria, no. 55495/08, § 38, 12 January 2016). - EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91
Radikalenerlaß
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2018 - 38450/12
In exercising its supervisory function it is not the Court's task to take the place of the national authorities, but rather to review under Article 10, in the light of the case as a whole, the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation, particularly whether they based their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 52, Series A no. 323, and Jerusalem, cited above, § 33, with further references), and whether the interference corresponded to a "pressing social need" and was "proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued" (see I.A., cited above, § 26, with further references). - EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72
HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2018 - 38450/12
The Court reiterates the fundamental principles underlying its judgments relating to Article 10 as set out, for example, in Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, Series A no. 24), and in Fressoz and Roire v. France ([GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I).
- EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88
KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2018 - 38450/12
A State may therefore legitimately consider it necessary to take measures aimed at repressing certain forms of conduct, including the imparting of information and ideas, judged incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of others (see, in the context of Article 9, Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A; Otto-Preminger-Institut, § 47; and Aydin Tatlav, § 25, both cited above). - EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95
JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2018 - 38450/12
As the Court has noted in previous cases, the difference lies in the degree of factual proof which has to be established (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 43, ECHR 2001-II; Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, §§ 73-76, ECHR 2001 VIII; and Genner v. Austria, no. 55495/08, § 38, 12 January 2016). - EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 55495/08
GENNER v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2018 - 38450/12
As the Court has noted in previous cases, the difference lies in the degree of factual proof which has to be established (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 43, ECHR 2001-II; Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, §§ 73-76, ECHR 2001 VIII; and Genner v. Austria, no. 55495/08, § 38, 12 January 2016). - EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 42571/98
I.A. v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2018 - 38450/12
As regards the alleged violation of Article 10 of the Convention, the Court of Appeal, referring to the Court's case-law (I.A. v. Turkey, no. 42571/98, ECHR 2005-VIII, and Aydin Tatlav v. Turkey, no. 50692/99, 2 May 2006), found that it had to examine whether the comments at issue were merely provocative or had been intended as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam. - EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 35071/97
GUNDUZ v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2018 - 38450/12
Referring, inter alia, to the Court's judgments in Aydin Tatlav, Giniewski (both cited above) and Gündüz v. Turkey (no. 35071/97, ECHR 2003-XI), the applicant alleged that improper attacks on religious groups had to be tolerated even if they were based on untrue facts, as long as they did not incite violence. - EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95
FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2018 - 38450/12
The Court reiterates the fundamental principles underlying its judgments relating to Article 10 as set out, for example, in Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, Series A no. 24), and in Fressoz and Roire v. France ([GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I). - EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90
PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2018 - 38450/12
The classification of a statement as fact or as a value-judgment is a matter which first and foremost falls within the margin of appreciation of the national authorities, in particular the domestic courts (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 36, Series A no. 313). - EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11
Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens
- EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87
OTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 8257/13
Blasphemie-Urteil gegen polnische Sängerin nicht rechtens
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, 11.03.2021 - 62639/12
DIMITRIOU c. GRÈCE
Dans les affaires concernant les excès de la liberté d'expression, la fonction émotive, consistant à exprimer les émotions du locuteur et à susciter des émotions dans l'auditoire, est particulièrement importante (on peut donner l'exemple suivant: E.S. c. Autriche, no 38450/12, §§ 12, 14, 21 52, 53 et 57, 25 octobre 2018). - EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 35364/19
BONNET c. FRANCE
La Cour a déjà considéré qu'une peine de 12 jours-amende à 290 EUR était « d'une relative légèreté'(Haldimann et autres c. Suisse, no 21830/09, § 67, CEDH 2015) ou que 120 jours-amende à 4 EUR était une peine « modérée'(E.S. c. Autriche, no 38450/12, § 56, 25 octobre 2018).
- EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 63539/19
ZEMMOUR c. FRANCE
Il estime qu'une telle opinion visait à apporter une proposition de solution à l'islamisation des territoires et ne constituait pas, à l'inverse de propos gratuits ou inutilement offensants qui ne nourrissent pas de débat d'intérêt général (Féret c. Belgique, no 15615/07, 16 juillet 2009, Le Pen, décision précitée, E.S. c. Autriche, no 38450/12, 25 octobre 2018), une incitation à la discrimination ou à la haine. - EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 13274/08
TAGIYEV AND HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN
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 for example, mutatis mutandis, Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 20 September 1994, § 47, Series A no. 295-A; I.A., cited above, §§ 29-31; and E.S. v. Austria, no. 38450/12, § 43, 25 October 2018). - EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 2591/19
GACHECHILADZE v. GEORGIA
In addition, expressions that seek to spread, incite or justify hatred based on intolerance, including religious intolerance, do not enjoy the protection afforded by Article 10 of the Convention (see E.S. v. Austria, no. 38450/12, § 43, 25 October 2018).