Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  I.A. c. TURQUIE

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 10 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  I.A. v. TURKEY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 10 (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (3)

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
• onlineurteile.de (Kurzmitteilung)

  Türkei: Verleger wegen Blasphemie verurteilt - Mehrheit des EGMR billigt das Urteil - wegen Beleidigung des Propheten

• IRIS Merlin (Kurzinformation)

  Fall I.A. gegen Türkei

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 42571/98
• EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 42571/98

Papierfundstellen

• NJW 2006, 3263

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 42571/98

  The Court reiterates the fundamental principles underlying its judgments relating to Article 10 as set out, for example, in Handyside v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24), and in Fressoz and Roire v. France ([GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I).

  This quotation from Handyside v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 23, § 49) has frequently been reproduced in the case-law of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights.

• EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87

  OTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 42571/98

  Among them, in the context of religious beliefs, may legitimately be included a duty to avoid expressions that are gratuitously offensive to others and profane (see, for example, Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, judgment of 20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A, pp. 18-19, § 49, and Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, § 67, ECHR 2003-IX).

  In Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria (judgment of 20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A) and Wingrove v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 25 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V) it held that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention, on account of excessive attacks on the religious feelings of the population and/or blasphemy (in both cases the "victims" were not the Muslim population but the Christian population).

• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 42571/98

  A State may therefore legitimately consider it necessary to take measures aimed at repressing certain forms of conduct, including the imparting of information and ideas, judged incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of others (see, in the context of Article 9, Kokkinakis v. Greece, judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A, and Otto-Preminger-Institut, cited above, pp. 17-18, § 47).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 42571/98

  The Court reiterates the fundamental principles underlying its judgments relating to Article 10 as set out, for example, in Handyside v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24), and in Fressoz and Roire v. France ([GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 44179/98

  MURPHY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 42571/98

  Among them, in the context of religious beliefs, may legitimately be included a duty to avoid expressions that are gratuitously offensive to others and profane (see, for example, Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, judgment of 20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A, pp. 18-19, § 49, and Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, § 67, ECHR 2003-IX).

• EGMR, 25.10.2018 - 38450/12

  Kritik am Propheten Mohammed: Nicht nur was man sagt, sondern auch in welcher …

  As regards the alleged violation of Article 10 of the Convention, the Court of Appeal, referring to the Court's case-law (I.A. v. Turkey, no. 42571/98, ECHR 2005-VIII, and Aydin Tatlav v. Turkey, no. 50692/99, 2 May 2006), found that it had to examine whether the comments at issue were merely provocative or had been intended as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam.
• EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 50692/99

  AYDIN TATLAV c. TURQUIE

  Toutefois, la Cour n'observe pas, dans les propos litigieux, un ton insultant visant directement la personne des croyants, ni une attaque injurieuse pour des symboles sacrés, notamment des Musulmans, même si, à la lecture du livre, ceux-là pourront certes se sentir offusqués par ce commentaire quelque peu caustique de leur religion (voir, a contrario, Ä°.A. c. Turquie, no 42571/98, § 29, CEDH 2005-...).