Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BIELAU v. AUSTRIA

  No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - general (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BIELAU v. AUSTRIA

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.04.2021 - 47621/13

  Impfpflicht in Tschechien: Impflicht für Kinder ist keine …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 20007/22

  In this context, the Supreme Administrative Court also referred to the Court's statements on the principle of proportionality in the Grand Chamber judgment Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic ([GC], nos. 47621/13 and 5 others, 8 April 2021).

  The Court had however already held that there was a general consensus among the Contracting Parties, strongly supported by the specialised international bodies, that vaccination was one of the most successful and cost-effective health interventions and that each State should aim to achieve the highest possible level of vaccination among its population (reference was made to Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], nos. 47621/13 and 5 others, § 277, 8 April 2021).

• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9815/82

  Bruno Kreisky

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 20007/22

  In this context, the Court also refers to its established case-law under Article 10 that in so far as statements of facts are concerned, proof of truth may be required (see Lingens v. Austria, no. 9815/82, § 46, 8 July 1986, and Oberschlick v. Austria, no. 11662/85, § 63, 23 May 1991).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 20007/22

  In this context, the Court also refers to its established case-law under Article 10 that in so far as statements of facts are concerned, proof of truth may be required (see Lingens v. Austria, no. 9815/82, § 46, 8 July 1986, and Oberschlick v. Austria, no. 11662/85, § 63, 23 May 1991).

• EGMR, 17.10.2002 - 37928/97

  Rechtssache S. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 20007/22

  In a case with similar facts, Stambuk v. Germany (no. 37928/97, 17 October 2002), a doctor had been fined in disciplinary proceedings for an article published along with his photo in the press, which had been found to constitute advertising by a medical practitioner and thus to be in breach of the applicable regulations at the relevant time.
• EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 26935/05

  Société de Conception de Presse et d’Edition et Ponson ./. France (franz.)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 20007/22

  Lastly, the two cases of Hachette Filipacchi Presse Automobile and Dupuy v. France (no. 13353/05, 5 March 2009) and Société de conception de presse et d'édition and Ponson v. France (no. 26935/05, 5 March 2009) concerned the fining of two publishing companies and their two publishing directors (EUR 30, 000 and 20, 000 respectively) for unlawful advertising of tobacco products.
• EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 13353/05

  Hachette Filipacchi Presse Automobile et Dupuy ./. France (franz.)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 20007/22

  Lastly, the two cases of Hachette Filipacchi Presse Automobile and Dupuy v. France (no. 13353/05, 5 March 2009) and Société de conception de presse et d'édition and Ponson v. France (no. 26935/05, 5 March 2009) concerned the fining of two publishing companies and their two publishing directors (EUR 30, 000 and 20, 000 respectively) for unlawful advertising of tobacco products.
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 24973/15

  CANGi c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 20007/22

  The Court finds nothing arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable in that interpretation of the relevant provisions and reiterates that it is first and foremost for the national authorities, and notably the courts, to interpret domestic law (see Cangı v. Turkey, no. 24973/15, § 42, 29 January 2019).
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 28396/95

  Nichtberufung eines liechtensteiner Richters in das Amt des Gerichtspräsidenten …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 20007/22

  Rn. 30 In order to determine whether Article 10 of the Convention was infringed it must first be ascertained whether the disputed measure amounted to an interference with the exercise of freedom of expression, in the form of a "formality, condition, restriction or penalty" (see Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, § 43, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 20007/22

  Such interference will breach the Convention if it fails to satisfy the criteria set out in the second paragraph of Article 10. The Court must therefore determine whether it was "prescribed by law", whether it pursued one or more of the legitimate aims listed in that paragraph and whether it was "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve that aim or aims (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 40, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 2840/10

  OOO MEMO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 20007/22

  The list of legitimate aims provided in paragraph 2 of Article 10 is exhaustive (see OOO Memo v. Russia, no. 2840/10, § 37, 15 March 2022).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 62414/00

  PALUSINSKI c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 74766/01

  VERITES SANTE PRATIQUE SARL c. FRANCE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• BGH, 31.07.2025 - 5 StR 78/25

  Verurteilung eines Journalisten wegen Veröffentlichung von Beschlüssen aus einem …

  Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte betont in ständiger Rechtsprechung die Bedeutung der Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung als eine der wesentlichen Grundlagen einer demokratischen Gesellschaft und eine der Grundvoraussetzungen für ihren Fortschritt und für die Selbstverwirklichung jedes Einzelnen (EGMR, Urteil vom 27. August 2024, Bielau/Österreich, Nr. 20007/22, AfP 2024, 409, 410).
• EGMR, 29.04.2025 - 36911/20

  AVAGYAN v. RUSSIA

  The Court acknowledges that combating the spread of false information about COVID-19 could, in principle, relate to the legitimate aims of protecting health and public safety under Article 10 § 2, and the protection of public health has been recognised as a legitimate aim justifying certain restrictions on Convention rights (see Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], nos. 47621/13 and 5 others, § 272, 8 April 2021 (in the context of Article 8), and Bielau v. Austria, no. 20007/22, § 39, 27 August 2024).

  Rn. 3 Moreover, we certainly acknowledge that combating the spread of false information about COVID-19 could, in principle, relate to the legitimate aims of protecting health and public safety under Article 10 § 2 and that the protection of public health has been recognised as a legitimate aim justifying certain restrictions on Convention rights (see Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], nos. 47621/13 and 5 others, § 272, 8 April 2021, in the context of Article 8, and Bielau v. Austria, no. 20007/22, § 39, 27 August 2024).

• EGMR, 18.06.2026 - 41355/23

  SOCIÉTÉ D'EXPLOITATION D'UN SERVICE D'INFORMATION - CNEWS c. FRANCE

  Rn. 27 Renvoyant notamment à l'arrêt Bielau c. Autriche (no 20007/22, § 46, 27 août 2024), le Gouvernement estime que l'ingérence avait pour buts légitimes d'assurer la protection de la santé et la défense des droits d'autrui, compte tenu du contexte de la pandémie mondiale et de l'impératif de protection de la population contre l'exposition à des informations médicales non vérifiées.

  En outre, à l'époque des faits (21 novembre 2021) les débats portaient sur une question sur laquelle il n'y avait guère de consensus établi au sein des États concernant l'origine de l'épidémie, les vagues, le traitement (les différents protocoles variaient selon les États) et les effets des vaccins (différents eux aussi d'ailleurs) (voir, a contrario, Bielau c. Autriche, no 20007/22, 27 août 2024, affaire dans laquelle le requérant niait de façon générale l'efficacité de n'importe quel vaccin).

• EGMR - 30230/24 (anhängig)

  JOYEUX c. FRANCE

  Y a-t-il eu ingérence dans le droit à la liberté d'expression du requérant, et spécialement dans son droit de communiquer des informations ou des idées, au sens de l'article 10 § 1 de la Convention (Bielau c. Autriche, no 20007/22, 27 août 2024) ?.