Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PASTÖRS v. GERMANY
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal) (englisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PASTÖRS v. GERMANY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal)
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse (3)
- zeit.de (Pressemeldung, 03.10.2019)
Udo Pastörs: Holocaust-Leugnung ist in Europa kein Menschenrecht
- lto.de (Kurzinformation)
Ex-NPD-Abgeordneter scheitert vorm EGMR: Holocaustleugnung ist keine Meinung
- welt.de (Pressebericht, 03.10.2019)
NPD-Politiker Pastörs: Holocaust-Leugnung ist kein Menschenrecht
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
PASTÖRS v. GERMANY
Verfahrensgang
- AG Schwerin, 16.08.2012 - 38 Ls 322/11
- LG Schwerin, 25.03.2013 - 42 Ns 27/12
- OLG Rostock, 16.08.2013 - 1 Ss 57/13
- EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14
Wird zitiert von ... (16) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80
DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14
Unlike in the present case, where the objective justification of the applicant's doubt in respect of the judges dealing with his appeal on points of law primarily results from the procedure they chose to reject the bias complaint against them, the impartiality defects in earlier cases were either more severe (objective and subjective bias found in Kyprianou, cited above, §§ 128 and 133; fundamental flaws in the court-martial system in Findlay v. the United Kingdom, 25 February 1997, §§ 78-79, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I; the composition of the first-instance court and matters of internal organisation in De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 33, Series A no. 86) or the subsequent decisions did not give substantive arguments in response to the applicant's complaint of bias, thus not remedying the defect (Boyan Gospodinov v. Bulgaria, no. 28417/07, §§ 58-59, 5 April 2018). - EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 25239/13
Holocaust-Leugnung: Dieudonné gescheitert
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14
Rather, it is in the first place for the national authorities, especially the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see M"Bala M"Bala v. France (dec.), no. 25239/13, § 30, ECHR 2015 (extracts), with further references). - EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 24683/14
ROJ TV A/S v. DENMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14
The former Commission and the Court have dealt with a number of cases under Articles 10 and/or 17 of the Convention concerning denial of the Holocaust and other statements relating to Nazi crimes and declared them inadmissible, either as being manifestly ill-founded (see recently Williamson v. Germany (dec.), no. 64496/17, 8 January 2019) - relying on Article 17 as an aid in the interpretation of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention and using it to reinforce its conclusion on the necessity of the interference - or as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention in view of Article 17 of the Convention (see Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 209-212, ECHR 2015 (extracts), with further references; see also Roj TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 24683/14, §§ 26-38, 17 April 2018, for an analysis of the case-law concerning Article 17 of the Convention).
- EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 64496/17
WILLIAMSON v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14
The former Commission and the Court have dealt with a number of cases under Articles 10 and/or 17 of the Convention concerning denial of the Holocaust and other statements relating to Nazi crimes and declared them inadmissible, either as being manifestly ill-founded (see recently Williamson v. Germany (dec.), no. 64496/17, 8 January 2019) - relying on Article 17 as an aid in the interpretation of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention and using it to reinforce its conclusion on the necessity of the interference - or as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention in view of Article 17 of the Convention (see Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 209-212, ECHR 2015 (extracts), with further references; see also Roj TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 24683/14, §§ 26-38, 17 April 2018, for an analysis of the case-law concerning Article 17 of the Convention). - BGH, 20.10.2003 - II ZB 31/02
Mitwirkung des Ehegatten eines Rechtsmittelrichters
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14
The case-law of the domestic courts diverges as to whether a justifiable fear of bias follows from the fact of marriage alone in a scenario in which the challenged judge is married to the judge who rendered judgment at the level of jurisdiction immediately below and in which that judgment is under scrutiny at the appeal stage (no fear of bias found by the Federal Court of Justice, no. II ZB 31/02, decision of 20 October 2003; fear of bias found by the Federal Social Court, no. B 14 AS 70/AS, decision of 18 March 2013, in view of the complexity of, and close scrutiny of the challenged judgment in, proceedings concerning an appeal on points of law). - EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13839/88
DEBLED v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14
The Court finds that the applicant's complaint of bias against X could not be considered as abusive or irrelevant as there might have been an appearance of lack of impartiality (see A.K. v. Liechtenstein, cited above, § 80; contrast Debled v. Belgium, 22 September 1994, § 37, Series A no. 292-B).
- EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 77400/14
AYOUB ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
Ce droit est encadré par les exceptions visées à l'article 11 § 2 sauf s'il est clairement établi que cette formation poursuit une activité ou commet des actes visant à la destruction des droits et libertés consacrés dans la Convention (Hizb Ut-Tahrir et autres c. Allemagne (déc.), no 31098/08, 12 juin 2012, Kasymakhunov et Saybatalov précité, § 103, Vona, précité, § 38 ; voir, également, s'agissant de la liberté d'expression, mutatis mutandis, Perincek, précité, § 114, Pastörs c. Allemagne, no 55225/14, § 37, 3 octobre 2019).Enfin, la Cour rappelle qu'elle a déclaré irrecevables plusieurs affaires portant sur la négation de l'holocauste et sur des propos concernant les crimes nazis sous l'angle de l'article 10 et/ou 17 de la Convention, soit comme étant manifestement mal fondées (pour un exemple récent, Williamson contre Allemagne (déc.), no 64496/17, 8 janvier 2019) - s'appuyant sur l'article 17 comme une aide à l´interprétation de l'article 10 § 2 de la Convention et pour conforter sa conclusion confirmant la nécessité de l'ingérence - soit comme étant incompatible ratione materiae avec les dispositions de la Convention compte tenu de l'article 17 de la Convention (Pastörs c. Allemagne, no 55225/14, §.36, 3 octobre 2019 et les affaires qui y sont citées).
- EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 42917/16
ZAICESCU AND FALTICINEANU v. ROMANIA
A summary of this case-law may be found in the cases of Perinçek (cited above, §§ 200-225) and Pastörs v. Germany (no. 55225/14, § 36-38, 3 October 2019). - EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 10271/12
KILIN v. RUSSIA
Article 17 is only applicable on an exceptional basis and in extreme cases and should, in cases concerning Article 10 of the Convention, only be resorted to if it is immediately clear that the impugned statements sought to deflect this Article from its real purpose by employing the right to freedom of expression for ends clearly contrary to the values of the Convention (see Perinçek, cited above, § 114, and Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, § 37, 3 October 2019).The Court has previously taken into account the intention of or the purpose being pursued by the applicant, in particular where that consideration had formed part of the criminal courts" reasoning (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, §§ 32-33 and 36, Series A no. 298; Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, §§ 70-71, 16 July 2009; Perinçek, cited above, §§ 232-33; Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, §§ 115 and 123, 9 May 2018; Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, §§ 43-48, 3 October 2019; and Atamanchuk, cited above, §§ 60 and 62).
- EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 37713/18
MEDIENGRUPPE ÖSTERREICH GMBH v. AUSTRIA
This must apply all the more to persons who did not only express extremist views but who committed severe crimes such as those under the Prohibition Act that run counter to the letter and the spirit of the Convention (see, in this context, mutatis mutandis, Witzsch v. Germany (dec.), no. 7485/03, 13 December 2005 and the cases cited therein, and, more recently, Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, § 39, 3 October 2019). - EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 27925/21
Pablo Hasél
The grounds on which the applicant's conviction was based, namely combating public praise or justification of terrorism, appear to be both "relevant" and "sufficient" to justify the interference at issue, and in that sense met a pressing social need (see Z.B. v. France, cited above, §§ 65-66, and, mutatis mutandis, ROJ TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 24683/14, § 47, 17 April 2018, and Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, § 48, 3 October 2019). - EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 11214/19
INTERNATIONALE HUMANITÄRE HILFSORGANISATION E. V. v. GERMANY
As with Article 10 (see the principles outlined in Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, §§ 36-38, 3 October 2019 and the case-law cited therein), the former Commission and the Court have dealt with a number of cases under Articles 11 and/or 17 of the Convention concerning associations whose statutes and/or activities are contrary to core Convention values, for example where they promote and justify terrorism and war crimes. - EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 4493/11
ATAMANCHUK v. RUSSIA
The latter approach is possible when under the "normal" analysis of Article 10 the conclusion is that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded or that there has been no violation of that Article (see, for example, Williamson v. Germany (dec.), no. 64496/17, §§ 20-21, 8 January 2019; ? imunic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20373/17, § 39, 22 January 2019; and (implicitly) Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, § 49, 3 October 2019). - EGMR, 02.03.2021 - 45202/14
KOLESNIKOVA c. RUSSIE
Elle constate que les motifs invoqués par la requérante ont été suffisamment circonstanciés et faisaient état d'éléments concrets et que, dès lors, la demande tendant à la récusation des juges n'était pas abusive (Pastörs c. Allemagne, no 55225/14, § 63, 3 octobre 2019). - EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 69575/10
RASHKIN v. RUSSIA
Political speech has its limits as the Court said recently in the case of Pastörs v. Germany (no. 55225/14, 3 October 2019). - EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 36658/18
ZHABLYANOV v. BULGARIA
In cases under Article 10, it can be resorted to to declare a complaint incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention solely if it is immediately clear that the expression in issue sought to deflect this Article from its real purpose by employing the right to freedom of expression for ends contrary to the Convention's values (see Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, § 37, 3 October 2019, with further references). - EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 52969/13
WOJCZUK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 12567/13
BUDINOVA AND CHAPRAZOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 3642/10
MUKHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.06.2023 - 23445/18
BAYDEMIR c. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 35364/19
BONNET c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 23.05.2023 - 61548/21
DALVY c. LES 47 ÉTATS MEMBRES