Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=25.01.2007&Aktenzeichen=68354/01
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:59:45
Document Index: 662252754

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 10', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 10', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 33', '§ 27', '§ 48', '§ 29', '§ 33', '§ 27', '§ 60', '§ 29', '§ 39', '§ 46', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 27', '§ 29', '§ 39', '§ 30']

EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 68354/01 - dejure.org
VEREINIGUNG BILDENDER KUNSTLER c. AUTRICHE
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)
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)
EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 68354/01
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).
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).
Lastly, in its judgment in Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria (no. 68354/01, 25 January 2007) concerning an injunction against the exhibition of pictures considered to be indecent, the Court based its findings on the same principles as those that govern its case-law on artistic creation, observing that "[a]rtists and those who promote their work are certainly not immune from the possibility of limitations as provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 10" (§ 26).
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, Tusalp v. Turkey, nos. 32131/08 and 41617/08, § 48, 21 February 2012, and Welsh and Silva Canha v. Portugal, no. 16812/11, §§ 29-30, 17 September 2013).
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).
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.
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, 29.05.2018 - 54184/11
OOO KD-KONSALTING c. RUSSIE
La Cour prend note de l'argument du Gouvernement selon lequel le contrat d'achat du zinc était fictif, mais elle estime que le Gouvernement ne peut pas valablement avancer de thèses non débattues devant les instances internes (voir aussi, dans le contexte de l'article 10 de la Convention, Vereinigung Bildender Künstler c. Autriche, no 68354/01, §§ 30-31, 25 janvier 2007).