WebOTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT Applicant -and- AUSTRIA Respondent WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY ARTICLE 19, THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE AGAINST … WebOtto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria (1994), in which the European Court for Human Rights upheld an Austrian prosecution of a film potentially offensive to Catholics.

Wingrove v. the United Kingdom, No. 17419/90, ECtHR …

WebOtto-Preminger-Institut v Austria. App no 13470/87 (1994) Series A no 295-A, para 47; Wingrove v UK . App no 17419/90 ECHR 1996-V; İ.A. v Turkey. App no 42571/98 ECHR 2005-VIII 235; Giniewski v France . App no 64016/00 ECHR 2006-I 277; Klein v Slovakia. App no 72208/01 (ECtHR, judgment of 31 October 2006); see also . X. Ltd. and Y. v the UK WebAbstract This chapter demonstrates the main points of all other chapters by means of a thorough analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in Otto-Preminger … honey electric ltd

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

WebJun 20, 2024 · They are characterised as world guided, action guiding and community shared. In this paper, thick concepts are used to analyse case law on blasphemy from the European Court of Human Rights. When... WebOtto-Preminger-Institut v Austria (1994) Unpalatable views are valid under 10.1 but restriction is justifiable under 10.2 Garaudy v France (2003) It's an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to stir up racial hatred on the street or in a public speech. WebJul 12, 2015 · The interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’) as a ‘living instrument’ by the European Court of Human Rights (‘the Court’) means that the standards of the Convention are not to be regarded as static, rather they should be reflective of social changes. honey electric leamington