Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=20.10.2015&Aktenzeichen=25239/13
Timestamp: 2019-02-22 15:21:27
Document Index: 596904341

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 7', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 10', '§ 40', '§ 71', '§ 73', '§ 107', '§ 54']

EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 25239/13 - dejure.org
M'BALA M'BALA c. FRANCE
zeit.de (Pressebericht, 10.11.2015)
Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
NJW-RR 2016, 1514
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).
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 - 4493/11 (anhängig)
ATAMANCHUK v. RUSSIA
Were the acts or omissions of the applicant in the present case aimed at the destruction of rights and freedoms to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention, within the meaning of Article 17 (compare M'Bala M'Bala v. France (dec.), no. 25239/13, 20 October 2015)?.