Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TATÁR AND FÁBER v. HUNGARY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 26005/08, 26160/08
• EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 26005/08

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  Chassagnou u.a. ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 26005/08

  It reiterates that its role is to supervise that the application of the domestic law be in conformity with the Convention, and would take the view that the term "assembly" possesses - just like the term "association" (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 100 in fine, ECHR 1999 III) - an autonomous meaning; the classification in national law has only relative value and constitutes no more than a starting-point.
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 26005/08

  Article 10 is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" (see Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), 23 May 1991, § 57, Series A no. 204).
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 25/02

  BALÇIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 26005/08

  However, in the Court's view, there was no need for such coordination in the present circumstances (cf. Balçık and Others v. Turkey, no. 25/02, § 49, 29 November 2007), since nothing indicates that either the public order or the rights of others were affected.

• EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 26258/07

  RAI ET EVANS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 26005/08

  26258/07 and 26255/07, 17 November 2009), in particular because the gathering of people on public ground may raise specific issues of public order.
• EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 37096/97

  Karademirci u.a. ./. Türkei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 26005/08

  The Court recalls in this connection that a press communiqué made in public, even where there was a gathering of twenty-five people, was examined under Article 10, rather than Article 11, of the Convention (see Karademirci and Others v. Turkey, nos. 37096/97 and 37101/97, § 26, ECHR 2005-I).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 26005/08

  Although freedom of expression may be subject to exceptions, they must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions must be convincingly established (see Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216).
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 2668/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 26005/08

  Having regard to its conclusions about the necessity of the interference (see paragraphs 36 to 42 below), and in view of the fact that the foreseeability of the application of the law in question is closely linked to the nature of the interference and of the right considered in the context of the necessity of the interference, the Court finds it unnecessary to examine this question in the circumstances (see, mutatis mutandis, Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, § 116, 14 September 2010).
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 25691/04

  BUKTA ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 26005/08

  Moreover, the "performance" in question was no spontaneous demonstration which would have been made devoid of any purpose had the requirement of prior notification been complied with (cf., a contrario, Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, §§ 31 to 39, ECHR 2007-III).
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 31451/03

  AÇIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 26005/08

  However, it is satisfied that the event, irrespective of the characterisation attributed to it by the applicants, constituted predominantly an expression (cf. Açık and Others v. Turkey, no. 31451/03, § 40, 13 January 2009), all the more so since it involved only two persons and lasted a very short time.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12

  Mariya Alekhina u.a. ./. Russland - "Pussy Riot"-Urteil verletzt Meinungsfreiheit

  For example, it has considered that the public display of several items of dirty clothing for a short time near Parliament, which had been meant to represent the "dirty laundry of the nation", amounted to a form of political expression (see Tatár and Fáber v. Hungary, no. 26005/08 and 26160/08, § 36, 12 June 2012).
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 76204/11

  NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA

  [16] Tatár and Fáber v. Hungary, no. 26005/08 and 26160/08, § 38, 12 June 2012.
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25501/07

  NOVIKOVA v. RUSSIA and 16 other applications

  While some of the applicants may be understood as ascertaining the existence of and alleging interference with a right not to be associated with somebody else's "expressive conduct"/demonstration (see, mutatis mutandis, Sørensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark [GC], nos. 52562/99 and 52620/99, § 54, ECHR 2006-I), the Court finds it appropriate to examine the present case under Article 10 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Tatár and Fáber v. Hungary, no. 26005/08 and 26160/08, § 29, 12 June 2012, and Açık and Others v. Turkey, no. 31451/03, §§ 35-36 and 40, 13 January 2009), taking into account, where appropriate, the general principles it has established in the context of Article 11 of the Convention (see, in particular, paragraphs 162-168 below in relation to Ms Novikova, Mr Kirpichev and Mr Romakhin; see also Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 19, 24 July 2012, and Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06, §§ 33 and 52, ECHR 2011).

• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9540/07

  [ENG]

  The Court referred to the applicants" actions as an "expressive interaction", and in rejecting the Government's argument that the impugned event had in fact constituted an assembly and thereby required scrutiny under Article 11 of the Convention, it held that the event had "constituted predominantly an expression" and had thus fallen within the scope of Article 10 of the Convention (no. 26005/08 and 26160/08, §§ 29, 36 and 40, 12 June 2012).
• EGMR, 03.07.2025 - 40899/22

  LUDES ET THONON c. FRANCE et 2 autres affaires

  Elle englobe à ce titre des types d'expression classique d'opinions ou d'informations, dans le cadre d'un discours oral ou écrit, mais également des formes de comportement (voir notamment, İbrahimov et Mammadov c. Azerbaidjan, 13 février 2020, no 63571/16 et 5 autres requêtes, §§ 166-167 ; également Tatar et Faber c. Hongrie, 12 juin 2012, no 26005/08 et 26160/08).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 4161/13

  KARUYEV v. RUSSIA

  26005/08 and 26160/08, 12 June 2012, concerning a public display of dirty clothes; Murat Vural v. Turkey, no. 9540/07, 21 October 2014, and Ibrahimov and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, nos.
• EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 17888/12

  SHVYDKA v. UKRAINE

  The Court notes in this connection that it has examined various forms of expression falling within the ambit of Article 10. For example, it has considered that the public display of several items of dirty clothing for a short time near Parliament, which had been meant to represent the "dirty laundry of the nation", amounted to a form of political expression (see Tatár and Fáber v. Hungary, no. 26005/08 and 26160/08, § 36, 12 June 2012).
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 422/11

  KOMMERSANT ZAO AND VORONOV v. RUSSIA

  An artistic performance can be a form of political expression (see Tatár and Fáber v. Hungary, nos. 26005/08 and 26160/08, § 36, 12 June 2012), and both political speech and commentary on matters of public interest are accorded the high level of protection under Article 10, 1eaving the State authorities a particularly narrow margin of appreciation for suppressing such speech (see Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 125, ECHR 2015, and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 49, 29 March 2016).