Aexpression was justified as legal and necessary in a democratic society namely to protect religious peace in Austria. The object of the referral to the courtViolation of Article of the ECHR. ARTICLE Freedom of speech . Every person has the right to freedom of expression . This right includes freedom of opinion and freedom to receive or communicate information or ideas without the interference of public authorities and regardless of borders . This article does not prevent States from subjecting broadcasting cinematography or television companies to an authorization regime. . The exercise of these freedoms.
Which entail duties and responsibilities may be subject to formalities Country Email List conditions restrictions or sanctions provided by law which in a democratic society constitute necessary measures for national security territorial integrity or public safety the defense of order and the prevention of crimes the protection of health morals reputation or rights of others to prevent the disclosure of confidential information or to guarantee the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. The reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights The Court analyzed whether the interference of the criminal conviction in the exercise of the freedom of expression of Mrs. S. complies with three criteria established as the basis for the restriction of the rights and freedoms of citizens.
The limitation must be provided by law must be necessary in a democratic society and have a legitimate purpose . the legality of the limitation condition fulfilled as the limitation was provided for by art. of the Austrian Criminal Code. applied was intended to protect peace between religions a direct application of Article para. of the Convention. limitation to be necessary in a democratic society art. of the Convention guarantees the right to free expression including the freedom to manifest religious beliefs. All those who enjoy this right must tolerate and accept the criticism of other nonpartisan.
發表於 16:28:11
