Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=09.02.2012&Aktenzeichen=1813/07
Timestamp: 2019-02-20 12:34:40
Document Index: 100528896

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 10', 'Art 10', '§ 40', '§ 71', '§ 73', '§ 107', '§ 54', '§ 55', '§ 54', '§ 55', '§ 70', '§ 39', '§ 28', '§ 48', '§ 29', '§ 40', '§ 79', '§ 69', '§ 54', '§ 253', '§ 56', '§ 76', '§ 73', '§ 55', '§ 2', '§ 49', '§ 116', '§ 53', '§ 63', '§ 58', '§ 55']

EGMR, 09.02.2012 - 1813/07 - dejure.org
VEJDELAND AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN
VEJDELAND AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN - [Deutsche Übersetzung] summary by the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (ÖIM)
[DEU] Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
Telepolis (Pressebericht, 09.02.2012)
Verurteilung eines homophoben Agitatoren gebilligt
Verurteilung wegen Verteilung eines Flugblattes gegen Homosexuelle von der Europäischen Menschenrechts Konvention (EMRK) gedeckt - Kein Verstoß gegen Art. 10 EMRK (Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung)
Verurteilung wegen homophober hate speech an Schule keine Verletzung des Art 10 EMRK
NJW 2013, 285
In assessing that point, the Court has been particularly sensitive towards sweeping statements attacking or casting in a negative light entire ethnic, religious or other groups (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 and in particular Muslim immigrants in France; 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, and Pavel Ivanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007, both of 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 v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, § 54, 9 February 2012, which concerned allegations that homosexuals were attempting to play down paedophilia and were responsible for the spread of HIV and AIDS).
Further references were made to Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden (no. 1813/07, § 55, 9 February 2012) in which the Court noted that the homophobic leaflets in question had been distributed to "young people who were at an impressionable and sensitive age and who had no possibility to decline to accept them"; the Government implied that this was equally relevant to the present case.
The ADF argued that a content-based approach to determining acceptable limitations on speech lacked clarity, was open to abuse and ran the risk of decisions being influenced by personal and political convictions rather than objective standards (they referred, inter alia, to Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, 16 July 2009, and Vejdeland v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, 9 February 2012).
On this point the LGL Association relied on the Court's judgment in Vejdeland v. Sweden (no. 1813/07, §§ 54 and 55, 9 February 2012) where the Court had held that Sweden had not breached the applicants" rights by prosecuting them, even though their statements had not called for violence.
Has there been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8 thereof, on account of the domestic authorities" decision to discontinue the criminal investigation concerning the comments on the first applicant's Facebook social network page (see Vejdeland v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, § 55, 9 February 2012; also see, mutatis mutandis, Identoba and Others v. Georgia, no. 73235/12, §§ 70 and 71, 12 May 2015, and R.B. v. Hungary, no. 64602/12, §§ 39 and 40, 12 April 2016)?.
Although the impugned statements clearly promoted the idea that it was better to be a Muslim than a non-Muslim, it is significant that they did not insult, hold up to ridicule or slander non-Muslims; nor did they use abusive terms in respect of them or of matters regarded as sacred by them (see, for a similar reasoning, Aydin Tatlav, cited above, § 28; Nur Radyo Ve Televizyon Yayinciligi A.S., cited above; and Kutlular, cited above, §§ 48 and 49; see also, by contrast, I.A. v. Turkey, cited above, §§ 29 and 30; Soulas and Others, cited above, § 40; Balsyte-Lideikiene v. Lithuania, no. 72596/01, § 79, 4 November 2008; Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, §§ 69 and 73, 16 July 2009; Le Pen v. France (dec.), no. 18788/09, 20 April 2010; and Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, §§ 54 and 55, 9 February 2012).
Moreover, it cannot be said that the incriminated statements were disseminated in a form that was impossible to ignore (see Perinçek, cited above, § 253, and, by contrast, Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, §§ 56-57, 9 February 2012), or in any other way that enhanced the message they were conveying (see, by contrast, Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, § 76, 16 July 2009).
Attacks on persons committed by insulting, holding up to ridicule or slandering specific groups of the population can be sufficient for the authorities to favour combating xenophobic of otherwise discriminatory speech in the face of freedom of expression exercised in an irresponsible manner (see Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, § 73, 16 July 2009, and Vejdeland v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, § 55, 9 February 2012).
The Court is further satisfied that the interference in question was designed to protect "the reputation or rights of others", namely Russian police personnel, and had thus a legitimate aim under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (see, for instance, Le Pen v. France (dec.), no. 18788/09, 20 April 2010, and Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, § 49, 9 February 2012).
Such a sanction, by its very nature, will inevitably have a chilling effect, and the fact that a suspended sentence was imposed which the applicant did not have to serve does not alter that conclusion, since her conviction was maintained (see, mutatis mutandis, CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re, cited above, § 116, and Erdogdu and Ince v. Turkey [GC], nos. 25067/94 and 25068/94, § 53, ECHR 1999-IV; contrast also with cases in which neither a matter of political debate nor freedom of the press was at stake, such as Lesník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, § 63, ECHR 2003-IV, and Vejdeland v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, §§ 58 and 59, 9 February 2012).
EGMR - 39954/09 (anhängig)
ALEKSEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
Given Mr Betin's and Mr Milonov's official position and the context in which the contested statements were made, did the respondent State bear responsibility for their statements? If yes, did the statements breach the applicants" right to respect for their private life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention or amount to discrimination on the ground of their sexual orientation contrary to Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8? If no, did the Government comply with their positive obligation under Article 8, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14, to protect the applicants" private life from alleged interference by a third party (see Vejdeland v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, § 55, 9 February 2012; Aksu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 4149/04 and 41029/04, ECHR 2012; R.B. v. Hungary, no. 64602/12, 12 April 2016; and Király and Dömötör v. Hungary, no. 10851/13, 17 January 2017)?.