Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SCHIMANEK v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 7, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 17, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Besprechungen u.ä.

• zaoerv.de (Aufsatz mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)

  Hassrede und extremistische Meinungsäußerungen in der Rechtsprechung des EGMR und nach dem Wunsiedel-Beschluss des BVerfG (Mathias Hong; ZaöRV 70 (2010), 73-126)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EKMR, 12.10.1989 - 12774/87

  H., W., P. AND K. v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2000 - 32307/96

  However, it observes that in the Austrian State Treaty of 1955 Austria undertook to maintain its legislation outlawing National Socialist Activities (no. 12774/87, H., W., P. and K. v Austria, Dec. 12.10.89, DR 62, p. 216 at p. 219).

  However, the Court follows the line of reasoning of the European Commission of Human Rights in 12774/87 (quoted above, at p. 220), where a similar provision of the Prohibition Act which contains exactly the same term, was found to be in conformity with Article 7 on the following grounds: "The legislator intended to outlaw any kind of National Socialist activities.

  2 of the Convention" (see no. 12774/87, quoted above).

• EGMR, 01.07.1961 - 332/57

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2000 - 32307/96

  In particular the European Commission of Human Rights has found in several similar cases that the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 10 of the Convention may not be invoked in a sense contrary to Article 17 (see mutatis mutandis the Lawless v. Ireland judgment of 1 July 1961 (merits), Series A no. 3, pp.
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2000 - 32307/96

  Only in exceptional circumstances could the length of a sentence raise doubts as to its compatibility with Article 3 of the Convention (Weeks v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, p. 25 § 47).

• EKMR, 12.05.1988 - 12194/86

  KÜHNEN v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2000 - 32307/96

  45-46, § 7, and the United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey judgment of 30 January 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, p. 27, § 60; see also no. 12194/86, Dec.
• EGMR, 22.06.1989 - 11373/85

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2000 - 32307/96

  Its task is accordingly not to review the aforesaid legal provisions and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which they were applied to or affected the applicant gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see for instance, Eriksson v. Sweden judgment of 22 June 1989, Series A no. 156, p. 23, § 54).
• EKMR, 11.01.1995 - 21128/92

  WALENDY v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2000 - 32307/96

  12.5.88, D.R. 56, p. 205; no. 21128/92, Dec.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 7485/03

  Missbrauchsverbot der EMRK (Nazi-Propaganda; Holocaust: Ausschwitz-Lüge und …

  41448/98, 20. April 1999; Schimanek ./. Österreich (Entsch.), Nr. 32307/96, 1. Februar 2000; Garaudy ./. Frankreich (Entsch.), Nr. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX; Norwood ./. Vereinigtes Königreich (Entsch.), 23131/03, 16. November 2004).
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 23131/03

  NORWOOD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court, and previously, the European Commission of Human Rights, has found in particular that the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 10 of the Convention may not be invoked in a sense contrary to Article 17 (see, inter alia, W.P. and Others v. Poland, (dec.), no. 42264/98, 2 September 2004; Garaudy v. France, (dec.), no. 65831/01, 24 June 2003; Schimanek v. Austria, (dec.) no. 32307/96, 1 February 2000; and also Glimmerveen and Hagenbeek v. the Netherlands, nos.
• EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 29297/18

  LILLIENDAHL v. ICELAND

  Although the comments were highly prejudicial, as discussed further below, it is not immediately clear that they aimed at inciting violence and hatred or destroying the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (compare Witzsch v. Germany (no. 1) (dec.), no. 41448/98, 20 April 1999; Schimanek v. Austria (dec.), no. 32307/96, 1 February 2000; Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX; Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, 16 November 2004; Witzsch v. Germany (no. 2) (dec.), no. 7485/03, 13 December 2005; and Molnar v. Romania (dec.), no. 16637/06, 23 October 2012).

• EGMR, 22.10.2024 - 4/18

  YÜKSEK c. TURQUIE

  The Court finds that his statements cannot be said to have reached the high threshold for applicability of Article 17. Although some of his statements were controversial and his criticisms of government policies were severe, it is not immediately clear that they were intended to incite to violence and hatred or to destroy the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (compare Witzsch v. Germany (no. 1) (dec.), no. 41448/98, 20 April 1999; Schimanek v. Austria (dec.), no. 32307/96, 1 February 2000; Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI; Witzsch v. Germany (no. 2) (dec.), no. 7485/03, 13 December 2005; Molnar v. Romania (dec.), no. 16637/06, 23 October 2012; Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 113-115, 15 October 2015; and Lilliendahl v. Iceland (dec.), 29297/18, § 26, 12 May 2020).
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 54574/07

  PAUNOVIC v. SERBIA

  Nevertheless, the Court does not have to decide whether it is appropriate to take this matter up separately at this stage in the proceedings, as the complaint is in any event inadmissible because the applicant failed to raise it, either in form or in substance, in his appeal before the Supreme Court (see paragraph 10 above) and has therefore failed to exhaust the available and effective domestic remedies (see Schimanek v. Austria (dec.), no. 32307/96, 1 February 2000; Salaman v. the United Kingdeom (dec.), no. 43505/98, 15 June 2000; Strømberg v. Denmark (dec.), no. 57211/00, 20 June 2002; and Andersen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 57204/00, 5 September 2002).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 4672/02

  FARBTUHS contre la LETTONIE

  Se référant à l'affaire Schimanek c. Autriche (déc., no 32307/96, 1er février 2000, non publiée), le Gouvernement fait tout d'abord remarquer que la peine d'emprisonnement de cinq ans, appliquée au requérant, ne peut pas, en tant que telle, être assimilée à une peine inhumaine ou dégradante au sens de l'article 3 de la Convention.
• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 31446/09

  TUNCER v. TURKEY

  Accordingly, the Court sees no reason to depart from its considerations in the aforementioned decisions (see also Schimanek v. Austria, (dec.) no. 32307/96, 1 February 2000, Salaman v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43505/98, 15 June 2000 and Roberts and Roberts v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38681/08, 5 July 2011).