Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HOARE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87

  OTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 31211/96

  Further, the Commission notes that no claim is made for any artistic merit in the applicant's video cassettes: to that extent, the present case is different from cases where an applicant has claimed that artistic considerations should prevail over protection grounds (see, for example, the above-mentioned Müller and others and Wingrove judgments, Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria judgment of 20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A, or No. 17634/91, Dec. 2.9.91, unpublished, where the applicant claimed that the absence of a defence of artistic merit violated Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention).
• EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84

  MÜLLER AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 31211/96

  By reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, State authorities are in principle in a better position than international organs to give an opinion on the requirements of "morals" as well as on the "necessity" of a "restriction" or "penalty" intended to meet them (Eur. Court HR, Müller and others v. Switzerland judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, p. 22, para. 35).
• EGMR, 25.03.1994 - 17116/90

  SCHERER v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 31211/96

  In the present case, the sole question which arises in the context of the relationship of proportionality between the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression and the aim pursued is the question of whether, given that the applicant only distributed his video cassettes to people who expressed a clear interest, it can be said that the penalty imposed was capable of protecting the "rights of others" (see, in this context, Scherer v. Switzerland, Comm. Report 14.1.93, Eur. Court HR, Series A no. 287, p. 20, para. 65).
• EKMR, 05.04.1994 - 21283/93

  TYLER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 31211/96

  In particular, it is not competent to deal with applications alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention (cf., e.g., No. 21283/93, Dec. 5.4.94, D.R. 77, p. 81).
• EKMR, 02.09.1991 - 17634/91

  S. AND G. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 31211/96

  Further, the Commission notes that no claim is made for any artistic merit in the applicant's video cassettes: to that extent, the present case is different from cases where an applicant has claimed that artistic considerations should prevail over protection grounds (see, for example, the above-mentioned Müller and others and Wingrove judgments, Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria judgment of 20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A, or No. 17634/91, Dec. 2.9.91, unpublished, where the applicant claimed that the absence of a defence of artistic merit violated Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention).

• EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 5446/03

  PERRIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  S'appuyant sur les affaires Handyside c. Royaume-Uni (arrêt du 7 décembre 1976, série A no 24, p. 21, § 44) et Hoare c. Royaume-Uni (no 31211/96, décision de la Commission du 2 juillet 1997, non publiée), elle jugea que l'article 2 de la loi de 1959 était suffisamment précis pour que l'on pût considérer que l'atteinte en cause était prévue par la loi.