Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 69317/14 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SEKMADIENIS LTD. v. LITHUANIA
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SEKMADIENIS LTD. v. LITHUANIA - [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);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)
- zeit.de (Pressemeldung, 30.01.2018)
Modekampagne darf religiöse Symbole zeigen
- juraforum.de (Kurzinformation)
Werbekampagne darf sich auf Jesus und Maria beziehen
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
SEKMADIENIS LTD. v. LITHUANIA
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 69317/14
- EGMR, 09.01.2019 - 69317/14
Papierfundstellen
- GRUR Int. 2018, 589
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87
OTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 69317/14
Referring to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Müller and Others v. Switzerland (24 May 1988, § 35, Series A no. 133) and Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria (20 September 1994, § 50, Series A no. 295-A), it stated that it was not possible to discern throughout Europe a uniform conception of the significance of religion in society and that even within a single country such conceptions might vary; for that reason it was not possible to arrive at a comprehensive definition of what constituted a permissible interference with the exercise of the right to freedom of expression where such expression was directed against the religious feelings of others, and a certain margin of appreciation was therefore to be left to the national authorities in assessing the existence and extent of the necessity of such interference.Amongst them, in the context of religious beliefs, is the general requirement to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under Article 9 to the holders of such beliefs including a duty to avoid as far as possible an expression that is, in regard to objects of veneration, gratuitously offensive to others and profane (see Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 20 September 1994, § 49, Series A no. 295-A; Murphy, cited above, § 65; I.A. v. Turkey, no. 42571/98, § 24, ECHR 2005-VIII; Giniewski v. France, no. 64016/00, § 43, ECHR 2006-I; and Klein, cited above, § 47).
- EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84
MÜLLER AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 69317/14
Referring to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Müller and Others v. Switzerland (24 May 1988, § 35, Series A no. 133) and Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria (20 September 1994, § 50, Series A no. 295-A), it stated that it was not possible to discern throughout Europe a uniform conception of the significance of religion in society and that even within a single country such conceptions might vary; for that reason it was not possible to arrive at a comprehensive definition of what constituted a permissible interference with the exercise of the right to freedom of expression where such expression was directed against the religious feelings of others, and a certain margin of appreciation was therefore to be left to the national authorities in assessing the existence and extent of the necessity of such interference.Relying on the Court's judgments in Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24), Müller and Others v. Switzerland (24 May 1988, § 35, Series A no. 133) and A, B and C v. Ireland ([GC], no. 25579/05, § 223, ECHR 2010), they submitted that domestic authorities, by reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, were better placed than the international judge to give an opinion on the exact content of the requirements of morals in their country, as well as on the necessity of a restriction intended to meet them.
- EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 24699/94
VgT VEREIN GEGEN TIERFABRIKEN c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 69317/14
It was therefore for the domestic courts to provide relevant and sufficient reasons why the advertisements, which, in the Court's view, were not on their face offensive, were nonetheless contrary to public morals (see, mutatis mutandis, VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, §§ 75-76, ECHR 2001-VI).
- EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83
MARKT INTERN VERLAG GMBH ET KLAUS BEERMANN c. ALLEMAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 69317/14
Similarly, States have a broad margin of appreciation in the regulation of speech in commercial matters or advertising (see markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany, 20 November 1989, § 33, Series A no. 165; Hertel, cited above, § 47; and Mouvement raëlien Suisse, cited above, § 61). - EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08
Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 69317/14
The Court is therefore empowered to give the final ruling on whether a "restriction" is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 (see Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland [GC], no. 16354/06, § 48, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 100, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and Bédat, cited above, § 48). - EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08
Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 69317/14
40660/08 and 60641/08, § 101, ECHR 2012; Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, ECHR 2016; and Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy, cited above, § 124). - EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 25579/05
A, B und C ./. Irland
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 69317/14
Relying on the Court's judgments in Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24), Müller and Others v. Switzerland (24 May 1988, § 35, Series A no. 133) and A, B and C v. Ireland ([GC], no. 25579/05, § 223, ECHR 2010), they submitted that domestic authorities, by reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, were better placed than the international judge to give an opinion on the exact content of the requirements of morals in their country, as well as on the necessity of a restriction intended to meet them. - EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 931/13
Keine Verletzung des Rechts auf Meinungsäußerung durch Verbot der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 69317/14
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 Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 131-33, ECHR 2015 (extracts), and Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, § 143, ECHR 2017 (extracts)). - EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72
HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 69317/14
Relying on the Court's judgments in Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24), Müller and Others v. Switzerland (24 May 1988, § 35, Series A no. 133) and A, B and C v. Ireland ([GC], no. 25579/05, § 223, ECHR 2010), they submitted that domestic authorities, by reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, were better placed than the international judge to give an opinion on the exact content of the requirements of morals in their country, as well as on the necessity of a restriction intended to meet them.
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 02.07.2019 - C-240/18
Generalanwalt Bobek: Die Entscheidung, mit der das EUIPO die Eintragung der Marke …
Vgl. auch Urteile des EGMR vom 25. August 2015, Dor/Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2015:0825DEC005515312, § 43 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung), sowie vom 30. Januar 2018, Sekmadienis Ltd./Litauen (CE:ECHR:2018:0130JUD006931714, §§ 75 bis 84). - EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 58951/18
C8 (CANAL 8) c. FRANCE