Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MOUVEMENT RAËLIEN SUISSE c. SUISSE
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
Exception préliminaire rejetée (Article 35-3 - Manifestement mal fondé) Non-violation de l'article 10 - Liberté d'expression-Générale (Article 10-1 - Liberté d'expression) ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MOUVEMENT RAËLIEN SUISSE v. SWITZERLAND
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded) No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MOUVEMENT RAËLIEN SUISSE v. SWITZERLAND - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MOUVEMENT RAËLIEN SUISSE v. SWITZERLAND - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
Kurzfassungen/Presse (3)
- lehofer.at (Kurzinformation und Auszüge)
Verbot der Plakatkampagne des Mouvement raëlien suisse war keine Verletzung des Art 10 EMRK
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
- juraforum.de (Kurzinformation)
UFO-Sekte darf nicht mit Plakaten werben
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)
Mouvement Raelien Suisse v. Switzerland
[16.11.2011]
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[FRE]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 16354/06
- EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (31)
- EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 44306/98
APPLEBY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06
The present case can also be distinguished from that of Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 44306/98, ECHR 2003-VI), which concerned the use of space belonging to a private company, and from the Women On Waves case concerning the denial of authorisation for a ship to enter a State's territorial waters - space that was "public and open by its very nature" (cited above, § 40).In this respect the case has certain similarities to that of Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 44306/98, ECHR 2003-VI), in which the restriction on the applicants" ability to communicate their views was limited to the entrance areas and passageways of a shopping mall and in which the Court's conclusion that the State was not in breach of its positive obligations under Article 10 was in part founded on the fact that the applicants had not been prevented from disseminating those views in other parts of the town or by other means.
These considerations are relevant in the present case, as they were in Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 44306/98, ECHR 2003-VI).
[8] This issue was addressed in regard to access to private space in Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 44306/98, ECHR 2003-VI), with reference to the positions of the US Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Canada.
[15] Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44306/98, §§ 47-49, ECHR 2003-VI, referring to Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. [United States Supreme Court Reports] 501.
- EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72
HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06
In this connection, the Court would point out that certain local authorities may have plausible reasons for choosing not to impose restrictions in such matters (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 54, Series A no. 24).For reasons explained in the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Tulkens, Sajó, Lazarova Trajkovska, Bianku, Power-Forde, Vucinic and Yudkivska, this case clearly falls under the test laid down in The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (26 April 1979, Series A no. 30) and in Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, Series A no. 24).
[2] Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 54, Series A no. 24.
- EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02
Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06
The boundaries between the State's positive and negative obligations under the Convention do not lend themselves to precise definition (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 82, ECHR 2009); in both situations - whether the obligations are positive or negative - the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see, for example, Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, §§ 51-52, Series A no. 290).[38] See, for example, Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 82, ECHR 2009.
At this juncture, it is also relevant to stress that the Court itself has significantly diminished the impact of the markt intern jurisprudence, in so far as it has admitted that commercial statements, i.e. commercially motivated or otherwise commercial in their origin, may also be involved in a debate of general interest and thus the margin of appreciation should be concomitantly reduced (see Hertel v. Switzerland, § 47, 25 August 1998, and Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland, no. 32772/02, §§ 69-71, 28 June 2001).
- EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 44179/98
MURPHY v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06
As regards the extent of the margin of appreciation, the Government emphasised that the ideas disseminated in the various publications obtainable through the Raelian Movement's website were capable of offending the religious beliefs of certain persons, and that the authorities had a wide margin of appreciation in that sphere (they cited Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, § 67, ECHR 2003-IX).A lower-level demonstration of a pressing social need in this context has been recognised (see Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, ECHR 2003-IX).
[16] Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, §§ 76-77, ECHR-IX.
- EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 15450/89
CASADO COCA v. SPAIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06
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, and Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 50, Series A no. 285-A).In any event, even restrictions on commercial advertising must "be closely scrutinised by the Court, which must weigh the requirements of [the] particular features [of such advertising] against the advertising in question" (see Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 51, Series A no. 285-A, and Stambuk, cited above, § 39).
- EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83
MARKT INTERN VERLAG GMBH ET KLAUS BEERMANN c. ALLEMAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06
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, and Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 50, Series A no. 285-A).[45] See markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany, 20 November 1989, § 33, Series A no. 165; Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland, no. 10890/84, § 72, 28 March 1990; Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 50, Series A no. 285 A; Demuth v. Switzerland, no. 38743/97, § 42-43, 5 November 2002; and Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG (no. 3) v. Austria, no. 39069/97, § 30, 11 February 2003.
- EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84
MÜLLER AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06
In such cases, the national authorities are in principle, by reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, in a better position than the international judge to give an opinion on the "necessity" of a "restriction" or "penalty" intended to fulfil the legitimate aims pursued thereby (see Müller and Others v. Switzerland, 24 May 1988, § 35, Series A no. 133).[3] Müller and Others v. Switzerland, 24 May 1988, § 36, Series A no. 133.
- EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74
SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06
For reasons explained in the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Tulkens, Sajó, Lazarova Trajkovska, Bianku, Power-Forde, Vucinic and Yudkivska, this case clearly falls under the test laid down in The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (26 April 1979, Series A no. 30) and in Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, Series A no. 24).[30] See The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 59, Series A no. 30.
- EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 24645/94
BUSCARINI ET AUTRES c. SAINT-MARIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06
In this connection, it should be observed that the freedom of thought, conscience and religion guaranteed by the Convention also entail freedom to hold or not to hold religious beliefs and to practise or not to practise a religion (see Buscarini and Others v. San Marino [GC], no. 24645/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-I).[51] See the leading case, Kokkinakis v. Greece, no. 14307/88, § 31, 25 May 1993, and after that Buscarini and Others v. San Marino [GC], no. 24645/94, § 34, ECHR 1999 I.
- EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 38432/97
THOMA v. LUXEMBOURG
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06
Pointing out that Article 10 of the Convention also protected the form in which ideas were conveyed (it cited Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 45, ECHR 2001-III), and sharing the opinion of the dissenting judges Rozakis and Vajic, according to whom the authorities" margin of appreciation was narrower when it came to negative obligations (Women On Waves and Others, cited above, § 40), the applicant association argued that there had, in the present case, been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.Moreover, the Court has always observed in its case-law that it is not its role to cast judgment on the manner in which individuals choose to express themselves, because Article 10 of the Convention also protects the form in which ideas are conveyed (see Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 45, ECHR 2001-III).
- EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 13936/02
MANOLE ET AUTRES c. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13914/88
INFORMATIONSVEREIN LENTIA AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83
BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)
- EGMR, 25.03.1985 - 8734/79
Barthold ./. Deutschland
- EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 21132/05
TV Vest AS & Rogaland Pensjonistparti ./. Norwegen
- EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00
Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …
- EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76
DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88
THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30985/96
HASSAN ET TCHAOUCH c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
- EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 24699/94
VgT VEREIN GEGEN TIERFABRIKEN c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 22.05.1990 - 12726/87
AUTRONIC AG v. SWITZERLAND
- EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87
OTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88
KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88
OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85
CASTELLS v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 41205/98
TAMMER v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 25576/04
FLINKKILÄ AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90
KEEGAN v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01
STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74
MARCKX v. BELGIUM
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 16354/06 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MOUVEMENT RAËLIEN SUISSE c. SUISSE
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
Non-violation de l'art. 10 (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MOUVEMENT RAËLIEN SUISSE v. SWITZERLAND
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
No violation of Art. 10 (englisch)
Kurzfassungen/Presse (4)
- lehofer.at (Kurzinformation)
- lehofer.at (Kurzinformation)
Außerirdische und Linkhaftung - die fliegenden Untertassen der Raëlischen Bewegung landen vor der Großen Kammer
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
- humanrights.ch (Kurzinformation)
Mouvement Raëlien Suisse gegen die Schweiz
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 16354/06
- EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06
Wird zitiert von ... (8) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00
Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 16354/06
Having regard to the principle that the Convention and its Protocols must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions (see, among many other authorities, Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, § 31, Series A no. 26, and Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 82, ECHR 2004-VIII), the Court takes the view that contemporary means of disseminating information must be taken into account in examining the impugned measure. - EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01
STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 16354/06
The fundamental principles in that regard are well established in the Court's case-law and have been summed up as follows (see, for example, Stoll v. Switzerland [GC], no. 69698/01, § 101, ECHR 2007-V, and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 87, ECHR 2005-II):. - EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 16354/06
Having regard to the principle that the Convention and its Protocols must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions (see, among many other authorities, Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, § 31, Series A no. 26, and Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 82, ECHR 2004-VIII), the Court takes the view that contemporary means of disseminating information must be taken into account in examining the impugned measure. - EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93
OZGUR GUNDEM c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 16354/06
Above all, in the present case the issue is not one of positive obligations, in which the extent of the State's responsibilities must not be interpreted as imposing on the authorities an unbearable or excessive burden (see Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 43, ECHR 2000-III); whilst it is true that, in both hypotheses - positive and negative obligations - the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation, the Court has found that this margin of appreciation is narrower as regards the negative obligations under the Convention (see Women On Waves and Others v. Portugal, no. 31276/05, § 40, 3 February 2009). - EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 38432/97
THOMA v. LUXEMBOURG
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 16354/06
It should be pointed out in this connection that Article 10 also protects the form in which the ideas and opinions in question are conveyed (see Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 45, ECHR 2001-III).
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.12.2013 - C-293/12
Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Cruz Villalón ist die Richtlinie über die …
67 - Zur Berücksichtigung des Multiplikatoreffekts der modernen Informationstechnologien, vor allem des Internets, vgl. insbesondere EGMR, Urteile vom 13. Januar 2011, Mouvement raëlien suisse/Schweiz, Beschwerde Nr. 16354/06, §§ 54 f., vom 16. Februar 2010, Akda?Ÿ/Türkei, Beschwerde Nr. 41056/04, § 28, und vom 16. Juli 2009, Willem/Frankreich, Beschwerde Nr. 10883/05, §§ 36 und 38. - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 15.07.2021 - C-401/19
Generalanwalt Saugmandsgaard Øe: Art. 17 der Richtlinie 2019/790 über das …
Insoweit hat der EGMR wiederholt entschieden, dass "[sich] die Grenze zwischen den positiven und den negativen Verpflichtungen des Staates nach der [EMRK] ... nicht genau definieren lässt" und dass in beiden Fällen im Wesentlichen dieselben Grundsätze anwendbar seien (vgl. u. a. EGMR, 13. Juli 2012, Mouvement Raëlien Suisse/Schweiz (CE:ECHR:2011:0113JUD001635406, § 50 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.04.2011 - C-70/10
Rechtsangleichung
- EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05
TARANENKO v. RUSSIA
On the public forum doctrine see the opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque in Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland [GC], no. 16354/06, ECHR 2012. - EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 52265/10
CHBIHI LOUDOUDI ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
La Cour rappelle par ailleurs qu'elle n'a point pour tâche, lorsqu'elle exerce son contrôle, de se substituer aux autorités internes compétentes, mais de vérifier sous l'angle de la Convention les décisions qu'elles ont prises en vertu de leur pouvoir d'appréciation (Aksu c. Turquie [GC], nos 4149/04 et 41029/04, § 65, CEDH 2012, et Mouvement raëlien suisse c. Suisse [GC], no 16354/06, § 60, CEDH 2012 (extraits)). - EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 40454/07
COUDERC AND HACHETTE FILIPACCHI ASSOCIÉS v. FRANCE
In exercising its supervisory function, the Court's task is not to take the place of the national courts, but rather to review, in the light of the case as a whole, whether the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation are compatible with the provisions of the Convention relied on (see Axel Springer AG, cited above, § 86; Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2), cited above, § 105; and Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland [GC], no. 16354/06, § 60, ECHR 2012 (extracts)). - EGMR, 27.08.2013 - 5773/06
P.A. c. ROUMANIE
La Cour rappelle également que les autorités nationales se trouvent en principe, grâce à leurs contacts directs et constants avec les forces vives de leur pays, mieux placées que le juge international pour se prononcer sur la «nécessité» d'une «restriction» ou «sanction» destinée à répondre aux buts légitimes qu'elles poursuivent (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres exemples, Mouvement raëlien suisse c. Suisse [GC], no 16354/06, § 63, CEDH 2012 (extraits)). - EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 55558/10
ANNEN v. GERMANY
In diesem Zusammenhang ist zu berücksichtigen, dass es nach Artikel 10 Abs. 2 der Konvention wenig Raum für Einschränkungen der politischen Redefreiheit oder der Debatte über Angelegenheiten des öffentlichen Interesses gibt (siehe u. v. a. Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT)./. die Schweiz (Nr. 2) [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 32772/02, Rdnr. 92, EGMR 2009, und Mouvement raëlien./. die Schweiz [GK] Individualbeschwerde Nr. 16354/06, Rdnr. 61, 13.