Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VEREINIGUNG BILDENDER KÜNSTLER c. AUTRICHE

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 10 Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VEREINIGUNG BILDENDER KÜNSTLER v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• lehofer.at (Kurzinformation)

  Meischberger, hardly remembered at all

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 68354/01
• EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 68354/01

Wird zitiert von ... (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.12.2018 - C-476/17

  Generalanwalt Szpunar schlägt dem Gerichtshof vor, zu entscheiden, dass Sampling …

  Vorbehaltlich des Art. 10 Abs. 2 [EMRK] erstreckt sie sich nicht nur auf 'Informationen' oder 'Ideen', die positiv aufgenommen oder als harmlos oder als indifferent angesehen werden, sondern auch auf solche, die den Staat oder einen Teil seiner Bevölkerung verletzen, schockieren oder beunruhigen" (EGMR, 25. Januar 2007, Vereinigung Bildender Künstler/Österreich, CE:ECHR:2007:0125JUD006835401, § 26).

  {FN:49} Vgl. EGMR, 25. Januar 2007, Vereinigung Bildender Künstler/Österreich, CE:ECHR:2007:0125JUD006835401).

  Wer das Recht auf Meinungsfreiheit in Anspruch nimmt, übernimmt dabei nämlich gemäß dem Wortlaut dieses Absatzes 'Pflichten und Verantwortung', deren Umfang von seiner Situation und den von ihm eingesetzten Mitteln abhängt" (EGMR, 25. Januar 2007, Vereinigung Bildender Künstler/Österreich, CE:ECHR:2007:0125JUD006835401, § 26).

• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 39378/15

  Kritik in Online-Forum: Menschengerichtshof stärkt Anonymität im Netz

  As regards the claim for non-pecuniary damage, the Court finds that given the circumstances of the present case the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage the applicant company may have sustained (see, for example and mutatis mutandis, Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria, no. 68354/01, § 44, 25 January 2007).
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 55537/10

  HAUPT v. AUSTRIA

  It found that (i) there were serious doubts regarding the correctness of the judgments in question as to how the contents of the transmission of the television programme at issue had been assessed and (ii) the Court of Appeal had not paid sufficient attention to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court in this regard, particularly in the light of the principles laid down by the Court in the cases of Nikowitz and Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria (no. 5266/03, 22 February 2007) and Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria (no. 68354/01, 25 January 2007).

  Accordingly, any interference with an artist's or social commentator's right to such expression must be examined with particular care (see Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria, no. 68354/01, § 33, 25 January 2007; Alves da Silva v. Portugal, no. 41665/07, § 27, 20 October 2009; EON v. France, no. 26118/10, § 60, 14 March 2013; and Welsh and Silva Canha v. Portugal, no. 16812/11, §§ 29 and 30, 17 September 2013), even though the use of this form of expression does not rule out any possibility of restriction under paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention (see Leroy v. France, no. 36109/03, §§ 39 and 44, 2 October 2008, and Instytut Ekonomichnykh Reform, TOV v. Ukraine, no. 61561/08, § 46, 2 June 2016).

• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 70434/12

  SOUSA GOUCHA v. PORTUGAL

  Referring to the case of Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria (no. 68354/01, 25 January 2007), it submitted that satire is a form of artistic expression and social commentary and, by its inherent features of exaggeration and distortion of reality, naturally aims to provoke and agitate.

  Accordingly, any interference with an artist's right to such expression must be examined with particular care (see Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria, no. 68354/01, § 33, 25 January 2007, and Alves da Silva v. Portugal, no. 41665/07, § 27, 20 October 2009; see also, mutatis mutandis, Tuşalp v. Turkey, nos.

• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 69317/14

  Modekampagne darf religiöse Symbole zeigen

  It also observes that none of the authorities addressed the applicant company's argument that the names of Jesus and Mary in the advertisements had been used not as religious references but as emotional interjections common in spoken Lithuanian, thereby creating a comic effect (see paragraphs 14, 17, 20 and 24 above; see also, mutatis mutandis, Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria, no. 68354/01, § 33, 25 January 2007), although it appears that those emotional interjections must have been known to them.
• EGMR, 06.04.2021 - 10783/14

  HANDZHIYSKI v. BULGARIA

  Accordingly, any interference with the use of this form of expression must be examined with particular care (see, among other authorities, Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria, no. 68354/01, § 33, 25 January 2007; Alves da Silva v. Portugal, no. 41665/07, § 27, 20 October 2009; and Eon, cited above, § 60), even though its use does not definitively rule out the possibility of restriction under Article 10 § 2 (see Leroy v. France, no. 36109/03, §§ 39 and 44, 2 October 2008, and Instytut Ekonomichnykh Reform, TOV v. Ukraine, no. 61561/08, § 46, 2 June 2016), or even of finding a complaint being inadmissible by reference to Article 17, in cases in which the satire is directed against the Convention's underlying values (see M'Bala M'Bala v. France (dec.), no. 25239/13, §§ 31-33 and 39-42, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 25200/11

  DICKINSON c. TURQUIE

  Elle rappelle en outre que ceux qui créent, interprètent, diffusent ou exposent une œuvre d'art contribuent à l'échange d'idées et d'opinions indispensable à une société démocratique - d'où l'obligation, pour l'État, de ne pas empiéter indûment sur leur liberté d'expression (voir, entre autres, Vereinigung Bildender Künstler c. Autriche, no 68354/01, § 26, 25 janvier 2007, et Müller, précité, §§ 32-33) - et que les formes d'expression artistique et de commentaire social telles que la satire, de par l'exagération et la déformation de la réalité qui les caractérisent, et par l'emploi d'un ton ironique et sarcastique visent naturellement à provoquer et à agiter (voir, mutatis mutandis, Vereinigung Bildender Künstler, précité, § 33 et MAC TV s.r.o. c. Slovaquie, no 13466/12, § 50, 28 novembre 2017).
• EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 61561/08

  [ENG]

  Accordingly, any interference with an artist's or social commentator's right to such expression must be examined with particular care (see Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria, no. 68354/01, § 33, 25 January 2007; Alves da Silva v. Portugal, no. 41665/07, § 27, 20 October 2009; and Welsh and Silva Canha v. Portugal, no. 16812/11, §§ 29 and 30, 17 September 2013) even though the use of this form of expression does not rule out any possibility of restriction under paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention (see Leroy v. France, no. 36109/03, §§ 39 and 44, 2 October 2008).
• EGMR, 13.02.2025 - 56310/15

  K.P. v. POLAND

  In accordance with the express terms of that paragraph, anyone who exercises his or her freedom of expression takes on "duties and responsibilities", and the scope of those duties and responsibilities will depend on his or her situation and the means used (see Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria, no. 68354/01, § 26, 25 January 2007; Akdaş v. Turkey, no. 41056/04, § 26, 16 February 2010; and Pryanishnikov, cited above, § 51).
• EGMR, 10.09.2024 - 21286/15

  DIANOVA v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  This situation thus falls within the scope of Article 10 of the Convention, which protects satire as a form of artistic expression and social commentary, that, by its inherent features of exaggeration and distortion of reality, naturally aims to provoke and agitate (see Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria, no. 68354/01, § 33, 25 January 2007).
• EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 69714/16

  MATASARU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 10.09.2019 - 25047/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 54184/11

  OOO KD-KONSALTING c. RUSSIE
• EGMR - 28299/25 (anhängig)

  Z v. SPAIN