Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=24.07.2012&Aktenzeichen=40721/08
Timestamp: 2019-11-22 21:07:13
Document Index: 168081566

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 10', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 11', '§ 50', '§ 62', '§ 64', '§ 48', '§ 39', '§ 79', '§ 69', '§ 73', '§ 107', '§ 52', '§ 64', '§ 80', '§ 37', '§ 49', '§ 66', '§ 92', '§ 42', '§ 47', '§ 37', '§ 149', '§ 37', '§ 42', '§ 34', '§ 49', '§ 38', '§ 136', '§ 91', '§ 42', '§ 34', '§ 49', '§ 38']

EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2012,27194
EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08 (https://dejure.org/2012,27194)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.07.2012 - 40721/08 (https://dejure.org/2012,27194)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. Juli 2012 - 40721/08 (https://dejure.org/2012,27194)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,27194) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) read in the light of Article 11 - (Art. 11) Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly) (englisch)
FÁBER v. HUNGARY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] summary by the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (ÖIM)
[DEU] Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) read in the light of Article 11 - (Art. 11) Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Non-pecuniary damage - award ...
Another factor has been whether the statements, fairly construed and seen in their immediate or wider context, could be seen as a direct or indirect call for violence or as a justification of violence, hatred or intolerance (see, among other authorities, Incal v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 50, Reports 1998-IV; Sürek (no. 1), cited above, § 62; Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 64, ECHR 2000-III; Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, §§ 48 and 51, ECHR 2003-XI; Soulas and Others, cited above, §§ 39-41 and 43; Balsyte-Lideikiene, cited above, §§ 79-80; Féret, cited above, §§ 69-73 and 78; Hizb ut-Tahrir and Others, cited above, § 73; Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov, cited above, §§ 107-12; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, §§ 52 and 56-58, 24 July 2012; and Vona, cited above, §§ 64-67).
The political and historical nature of the publications on Atatürk should also have been taken into account (for the differences between a speech on "established historical facts" and an ongoing debate on historical facts, see my separate opinion in Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, 24 July 2012).
EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 75734/12
RAZVOZZHAYEV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE AND UDALTSOV v. RUSSIA
4916/07, 25924/08 and 14599/09, § 80, 21 October 2010; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 37, 24 July 2012; Gün and Others v. Turkey, no. 8029/07, § 49, 18 June 2013; Taranenko, cited above, § 66; Kudrevicius and Others, cited above, § 92; and Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos.
Under particular circumstances (see, conversely, Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, 24 July 2012) such remarks, combined with negationist discourse, might have resulted in a clear and present danger of incitement to hatred, the standard applied by the Court in similar cases for finding that the interference of the criminal law was proportionate (see Gül and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870/02, § 42, 8 June 2010).
[36] See Judge Pinto de Albuquerque's separate opinion in Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, 24 July 2012.
Voir mon opinion dissidente jointe à l'arrêt Fáber c. Hongrie, no 40721/08, 24 juillet 2012.
It appears that the nuisance caused by the applicant and his fellow protestors caused a certain disruption to ordinary life but did not in the concrete circumstances exceed that level of minor disturbance that follows from normal exercise of the right of peaceful assembly in a public place (see Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 47, 24 July 2012; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 37, ECHR 2007-III; cf. Kudrevicius and Others, cited above, §§ 149, 164-75).
See, for example, about revisionism, Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, 24 June 2003; Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, ECHR 2015 (extracts), promoting totalitarian ideas; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, 24 July 2012, hate speech; Norwood v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI, incitement to violence; and Hizb Ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, 12 June 2012.
To sum up, the Court reiterates that any measures interfering with freedom of assembly and expression other than in cases of incitement to violence or rejection of democratic principles do a disservice to democracy and often even endanger it (see Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 37, 24 July 2012).
On the clear and imminent danger test see the opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque in Faber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, 24 July 2012.
In particular, where irregular demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (ibid., § 42; see also see Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012; Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 136-37, 30 May 2013, and Kasparov, cited above, § 91).
1, paragraph 34; see also, finally, the opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque in Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, 24 July 2012, reiterated in the opinion of Judges Raimondi, Jociene and Pinto de Albuquerque in Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania, no. 37553/05, 26 November 2013, the opinion of Judges Pinto de Albuquerque, Turkovic and Dedov in Taranenko, cited above, and the opinion of Judges Pinto de Albuquerque and Turkovic, in Primov and Others, cited above).
In particular, where irregular demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (ibid., § 42; see also Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012, and Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012).
EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 27585/13
UNITED CIVIL AVIATION TRADE UNION AND CSORBA v. HUNGARY
EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 42878/05
SOLARI c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA