- Home >
- Legislation >
- Case law >
- European Court of Human Rights
European court of human rights
European Court of Human Rights Sentences (ECHR):
- ECHR Judgment, April 28, 2020
. Case of AT ZRT v. Hungary. Freedom of expression.
In this case, the applicant company is the owner of the TV channel ATV which complained that the domestic courts’ decision finding that it had infringed the Media Act, in particular, its provision prohibiting the expression of opinions describing political party as “far-right” on the basis of unforeseeable application of statutory ban on the communication of any “opinion” by a newsreader, had violated its right to freedom of expression.The applicant company relied on Article 10 of the Convention. The Court, unanimously, declares the application admissible and holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
- ECHR Judgment, January 14, 2020 . Case of Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania. Sexual orientation discrimination.
This sentence condemns the State of Lithuania for failing to adequately investigate its prosecution, a lawsuit filed for threatening comments about homosexual people, published on a social network. The Court applies its own jurisprudence on the obligation of States to carry out effective investigations related to facts of a discriminatory nature. In this case, a homophobic hate speech in internet.The Courts consider that the breach of this obligation violates Article 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and this lack of investigation was carried out for reasons of discrimination related to the sexual orientation of the victims. Furthermore, there would be an additional violation of Article 14 of the aforementioned Convention, since "proof of sexual orientation" was not admitted as a reason for discrimination, to initiate preliminary proceedings in the court case.
- ECHR Decision, January 08, 2019 . Richard Williamson against Germany. Freedom of expression.
The European Court of Human Rights rules in this judgment that the "explicit denial" of the existence of gas chambers under the Nazi regime is not protected by the right to freedom of expression established in Article 10 of the Convention for Human Rights. Moreover, the ruling affirms that the sentence issued by the German Courts was proportional to the legitimate objective pursued and that it was necessary in a democratic society.The judgment rejects the plaintiff's claim and considers that the fact of the applicant denied and minimized the genocide of the Jewish people, constitutes a contempt for the dignity of the Jewish victims and would have seriously disturbed the peace in Germany.
- ECHR Judgment, of 17 July 2018 . Case of Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia. Freedom of expression..
On 2012, three women members of the famous feminist punk Russian band, known as the “Pussy Riot” were convicted in their home country for performing one of their songs Punk Prayer – Virgin Mary, Drive Putin Away inside Moscow’s cathedral. It was considered that they had offended the orthodox believers with the only purpose of inciting hatred and creating a negative bias towards them. The applicants decided to take their case to Europe, alleging that there had been breaches in the course of their criminal prosecution regarding the prohibition of torture, the right to a fair trial, the rights to freedom and security and freedom of expression. The European Court of Human Rights condemns Russia with this sentence, since it considers that the members of the band were exposed to humiliating treatment and were judged too severely.
- ECHR Judgment, of 28 March 2017 . Case of Škorjanec v. Croatia. Discrimination by Association.
The judgment is referred to a couple which was assaulted by two individuals, who were later convicted by the attack. It was established that there was enough proof to determine that the attack had been a hate crime due to the anti-Roma insults that were pronounced by the aggressors before and during the attack. The applicant was considered as a witness of the crime, and not as a victim as her partner had. The competent Prosecutor, without denying that the applicant had been assaulted during the attack, concluded that there was no proof of her being a victim of an attack motivated by racist convictions, since she did not have a Roma origin. Hence, her case was dismissed by the Prosecutor. The ECHR decided to examine the complaint of the applicant regarding the failure by the domestic authorities to effectively discharge their positive obligations in relation to a racially motivated act of violence against the applicant. The ECHR has found in the case a violation of articles 3 and 14 of the Convention, which compels to investigate possible racist motivations when an incident occurs, and it might concern acts of violence based on real or alleged personal status or on the characteristics of the victim, and also extends to those acts of violence based on the association or affiliation with another person who really or presumably possesses a particular status or protected characteristics.
- ECHR Judgment, Grand Chamber, from 15 October 2015, application no. 27510/08.
. Case of Perinçek v. Switzerland.
This ruling confirms the decision that Switzerland violated Mr. Perinçek's right to freedom of expression, facing the decision of the Swiss courts that repeatedly condemned Mr. Prerincek criminally for racial discrimination after publicly denying the existence of genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenian people in 1915.
- ECHR Judgment, from 20 October 2015, application 15529/12 . Case of Balázs v. Hungary.
It endorses the importance and validity of the indicators to guide hate crime investigations.
- ECHR Judgment, Grand Chamber, from 1 July 2014, application no. 13835/11 .Case of S.A.S. v. France.
Lawsuit against the State of France for the law on the prohibition of the use of burqa and niqab in public spaces.
- ECHR Judgment, Grand Chamber, 15 May 2012, applications nos. 4149/04 and 41029/04 . Case of Aksu v. Turkey.
The applicant, of Turkish nationality and a member of the Roma community, intended that the ECHR established the international responsibility of that State for three publications - which had received public funding - and included statements and expressions that reflected the anti-Roma sentiment, therefore, he alleged the violation of articles 8 and 14 of the Human Rights Convention.
- ECHR Judgment, 8 December 2009, application no. 49151/07 . Case of Muños Díaz v. España.
The Judgment rules in favor of a Spanish woman from the Roma community, to whom the national authorities deny a widow's pension for having married by the Roma rite in 1971.
- ECHR Judgment, Grand Chamber, 13 November 2007, application no. 57325/00 . Case of D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic.
This ruling revokes the Judgment of the Chamber of the same Court, dated February 7th, 2006, dealing with the difference in treatment that Roma children received in schooling in the Czech Republic for a certain period of time, since a very high number of Roma children were placed in special schools for children with intellectual disabilities. The Judgment of the Chamber had refused to grant probative value of discrimination to the statistical data and therefore did not consider that there had been indirect discrimination in the case.
- ECHR Judgment, from 24 February 1997 . Case of De Haas and Gijsels v. Belgium.
The court emphasizes that freedom of expression is valid not only for information or ideas received willingly or considered harmless or indifferent, but also for those that contradict, collide or disturb the State or any part of the population.
