Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PAVEL IVANOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 17, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PAVEL IVANOV c. RUSSIE

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 17, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (22)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35222/04

  The Court further reiterates that, although its case-law has enshrined the overriding and essential nature of the freedom of expression in a democratic society (see, among other authorities, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, § 49, and Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, § 41), it has also laid down the limits to that freedom.
• EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 65831/01

  Schutz der Infragestellung der von den Nazis am jüdischen Volk begangenen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35222/04

  The examples of such speech examined by the Court have included statements denying the Holocaust, justifying a pro-Nazi policy, alleging the prosecution of Poles by the Jewish minority and the existence of inequality between them, or linking all Muslims with a grave act of terrorism (see Lehideux and Isorni, cited above, §§ 47 and 53; Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX; W.P. and Others v. Poland (dec.), no.42264/98, 2 September 2004; Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, 16 November 2004; and Witzsch v. Germany (dec.), no. 7485/03, 13 December 2005).
• EGMR, 16.09.1996 - 17371/90

  Staatsangehörigkeit und "Notstandshilfe"

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35222/04

  The Court reiterates that, in accordance with its established case-law, Article 14 has no independent existence, since it has effect solely in relation to the rights and freedoms safeguarded by the other substantive provisions of the Convention and its Protocols (see, among many other authorities, Gaygusuz v. Austria, no. 17371/90, § 36, ECHR 1996-IV).

• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 7485/03

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35222/04

  The examples of such speech examined by the Court have included statements denying the Holocaust, justifying a pro-Nazi policy, alleging the prosecution of Poles by the Jewish minority and the existence of inequality between them, or linking all Muslims with a grave act of terrorism (see Lehideux and Isorni, cited above, §§ 47 and 53; Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX; W.P. and Others v. Poland (dec.), no.42264/98, 2 September 2004; Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, 16 November 2004; and Witzsch v. Germany (dec.), no. 7485/03, 13 December 2005).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35222/04

  In so far as the applicant's grievance may be understood as a complaint about a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that while Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 23131/03

  NORWOOD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35222/04

  The examples of such speech examined by the Court have included statements denying the Holocaust, justifying a pro-Nazi policy, alleging the prosecution of Poles by the Jewish minority and the existence of inequality between them, or linking all Muslims with a grave act of terrorism (see Lehideux and Isorni, cited above, §§ 47 and 53; Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX; W.P. and Others v. Poland (dec.), no.42264/98, 2 September 2004; Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, 16 November 2004; and Witzsch v. Germany (dec.), no. 7485/03, 13 December 2005).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35222/04

  Furthermore, the Court reiterates that, according to its constant case-law, Article 13 of the Convention applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).
• EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 42264/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35222/04

  The examples of such speech examined by the Court have included statements denying the Holocaust, justifying a pro-Nazi policy, alleging the prosecution of Poles by the Jewish minority and the existence of inequality between them, or linking all Muslims with a grave act of terrorism (see Lehideux and Isorni, cited above, §§ 47 and 53; Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX; W.P. and Others v. Poland (dec.), no.42264/98, 2 September 2004; Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, 16 November 2004; and Witzsch v. Germany (dec.), no. 7485/03, 13 December 2005).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11

  Burka-Verbot: In Würde verschleiert

  The Court reiterates that remarks which constitute a general, vehement attack on a religious or ethnic group are incompatible with the values of tolerance, social peace and nondiscrimination which underlie the Convention and do not fall within the right to freedom of expression that it protects (see, among other authorities, Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI, and Ivanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007).
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 25239/13

  Holocaust-Leugnung: Dieudonné gescheitert

  D'autres décisions de la Cour, notamment dans les affaires Norwood c. Royaume-Uni (no 23131/03, CEDH 2004-XI) et Ivanov c. Russie (no 35222/04, 20 février 2007), ont concerné l'usage de la liberté d'expression dans des buts respectivement islamophobe et antisémite.
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 31098/08

  HIZB UT-TAHRIR AND OTHERS v. GERMANY

  Zu derselben Schlussfolgerung gelangte der Gerichtshof beispielsweise in den Rechtssachen Norwood (…(Entsch.), a.a.O.) und Pavel Ivanov./. Russland ((Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 35222/04, 20. Februar 2007), die die Ausübung der Meinungsfreiheit zu islamophoben bzw. antisemitischen Zwecken nutzten.

• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12

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

  In assessing that point, the Court has been particularly sensitive towards sweeping statements attacking entire ethnic, religious or other groups or casting them in a negative light (see Seurot v. France (dec.), no. 57383/00, 18 May 2004, Soulas and Others, cited above, §§ 40 and 43; and Le Pen, cited above, all of which concerned generalised negative statements about non-European immigrants in France, in particular Muslims; Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI, which concerned statements linking all Muslims in the United Kingdom with the terrorist acts in the United States of America on 11 September 2001; W.P. and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 42264/98, 2 September 2004; Pavel Ivanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007; M'Bala M'Bala v. France (dec.), no. 25239/13, 20 October 2015, which concerned vehement anti-Semitic statements; Féret, cited above, § 71, which concerned statements portraying non-European immigrant communities in Belgium as criminally minded; Hizb ut-Tahrir and Others, § 73, and Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov, § 107, both cited above, which concerned direct calls for violence against Jews, the State of Israel, and the West in general; and Vejdeland and Others, cited above, § 54, which concerned allegations that homosexuals were attempting to play down paedophilia and were responsible for the spread of HIV and Aids).
• EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 24683/14

  ROJ TV A/S v. DENMARK

  Although to achieve that purpose it is not necessary to take away every one of the rights and freedoms guaranteed from groups and persons engaged in activities contrary to the text and spirit of the Convention, the Court has found that the freedoms of religion, expression and association guaranteed by Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention are covered by Article 17 (see, among other authorities, W.P. and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 42264/98, ECHR 2004-VII (extracts); Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Pavel Ivanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007; and Hizb ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, §§ 72-75 and 78, 12 June 2012).

  The Court reached the same conclusion in, for example, Norwood v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI), and Pavel Ivanov v. Russia ((dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007), which concerned the use of freedom of expression for Islamophobic and anti-Semitic purposes respectively.

• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 34367/14

  Islamist scheitert mit Klage gegen Verurteilung wegen Hass-Aufrufes

  La Cour a ainsi fait application de l'article 17 de la Convention en excluant certains propos de la protection offerte par l'article 10 dans des affaires relatives à des déclarations qui niaient l'Holocauste ou son organisation par Hitler (Garaudy c. France (déc.), no 65831/01, CEDH 2003-IX, et Witzsch c. Allemagne no 2 (déc.), no 7485/03, 13 décembre 2005), à une association qui alléguait que les Polonais étaient persécutés par la minorité juive (W.P. et autres c. Pologne (déc.), no 42264/98, 2 septembre 2004), à un poster qui associait tous les musulmans à un grave acte de terrorisme (Norwood c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 23131/03, 16 novembre 2004), ou encore dans des affaires relatives à des publications ou spectacles jugés antisémites et négationnistes (Pavel Ivanov c. Russie (déc.), no 35222/04, 20 février 2007, et M'Bala M'Bala c. France (déc.), no 25239/13, CEDH 2015 (extraits)).
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 20373/17

  SIMUNIC v. CROATIA

  Although to achieve that purpose it is not necessary to take away every one of the rights and freedoms guaranteed from groups and persons engaged in activities contrary to the text and spirit of the Convention, the Court has found that the freedoms of religion, expression and association guaranteed by Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention are covered by Article 17 (see, among other authorities, W.P. and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 42264/98, ECHR 2004-VII (extracts); Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Pavel Ivanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007; and Hizb ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, §§ 72-75 and 78, 12 June 2012).

  The Court's task is merely to review under Article 10 the decisions they delivered pursuant to their power of appreciation (see, among other authorities, Lehideux and Isorni v. France, 23 September 1998, § 50, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII, and Pavel Ivanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007).

• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 48657/16

  Für ethnischen Hass in Bosnien-Herzegowina gibt es ein Jahr auf Bewährung

  Referring to Pavel Ivanov v. Russia ((dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007), the Constitutional Court held that in the circumstances the applicant could not benefit from the protection afforded by Article 10 of the Convention.

  The Court notes at the outset that it is not its task to rule on the constituent elements of the offence of which the applicant was convicted under domestic law by reviewing whether those elements actually arose from his actions (see, mutatis mutandis, Pavel Ivanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007, and Belkacem v. Belgium (dec.), no. 34367/14, § 29, 27 June 2017).

• EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 77400/14

  AYOUB c. FRANCE

  Elle est parvenue à cette même conclusion dans les décisions Garaudy c. France ((déc.), no 65831/01, 24 juin 2003) et M'Bala M'Bala c. France ((déc.), no 25239/13, CEDH 2015 (extraits)) qui concernent l'usage de la liberté d'expression dans des buts antisémite et négationniste (pour un résumé de ces décisions, voir Roj TV A/S, précité, §§ 32 et 37 ; voir, également, concernant des déclarations antisémites véhémentes, Pavel Ivanov c. Russie (déc.), no 35222/04, 20 février 2007 et, s'agissant de la négation de l'holocauste, Perinçek, précité, § 243).
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 12567/13

  BUDINOVA AND CHAPRAZOV v. BULGARIA

  That, however, ignored the point that while an expression of opinion might touch upon a matter of public concern - such as the relations between ethnic groups in a country - it can at the same time promote or justify hatred and intolerance towards some of those groups, and thus be entitled to no or very limited protection under Article 10 of the Convention (see, for example, Pavel Ivanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007, regarding statements concerning Jews in Russia, and Balsytė-Lideikienė v. Lithuania, no. 72596/01, § 79, 4 November 2008, regarding statements concerning Jews and Poles in Lithuania).
• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 4493/11

  ATAMANCHUK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 20985/05

  ORBAN ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 5869/17

  ERKIZIA ALMANDOZ c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 26261/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 37428/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 10271/12

  KILIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 13772/05

  LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 08.01.2026 - 7557/23

  TAFZI EL HADRI AND EL IDRISSI MOUCH v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 47833/20

  LENIS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 54357/15

  SMITH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 24803/05

  OKTAY c. TURQUIE (I)
• EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 37885/18

  VÁRADI c. ROUMANIE