No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
E.S. v. Austria (Eur. Ct. H.R.)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 June 2019
Extract
In E.S. v. Austria, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that a criminal conviction for making disparaging comments about the Prophet Muhammad, intimating in particular that he was a pedophile, did not violate the speaker's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
- Type
- International Legal Documents
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2019 by The American Society of International Law
References
ENDNOTES
1 E.S. v. Austria, App. No. 38450/12, Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶¶ 53, 58 (Oct. 25, 2018).
2 Id. ¶ 46.
3 For discussion of the margin of appreciation in the context of conflicting human rights, see Stijn Smet, When Human Rights Clash in ‘The Age of Subsidiarity’: What Role for the Margin of Appreciation?, in Human Rights Between Law and Politics: The Margin of Appreciation in Post-National Contexts 55 (Petr Agha ed., 2017).
4 E.S. v. Austria, App. No. 38450/12, Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 49 (Oct. 25, 2018) (referencing Von Hannover v. Germany (No. 2), App. Nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 107 (Feb. 7, 2012)).
5 Id. ¶ 50.
6 Id. ¶ 57.
7 Id. ¶ 42; Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 295 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) ¶ 47 (1994).
8 The citation combines E.S. v. Austria, App. No. 38450/12, Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 43 (Oct. 25, 2018) with Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 295 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) ¶ 47 and 49 (1994).
9 See also Í.A v. Turkey, 2005-VIII Eur. Ct. H.R. (which, like E.S., concerned disparaging statements made about the Prophet Muhammad).
10 See Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 295 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) ¶ 22 (1994).
11 On E.S., see, e.g., Marko Milanovic, Legitimizing Blasphemy Laws Through the Backdoor: The European Court's Judgment in E.S. v. Austria, EJIL: Talk! (Oct. 29, 2018), https://www.ejiltalk.org/legitimizing-blasphemy-laws-through-the-backdoor-the-european-courts-judgment-in-e-s-v-austria.
12 Stavros Tsakyrakis, Proportionality: An Assault on Human Rights?, 7 Int'l J. Const. L. 468 (2009); George Letsas, Is There a Right Not to Be Offended in One's Religious Beliefs?, in Law, State and Religion in Europe: Debates and Dilemmas 239 (Lorenzo Zucca & Camil Ungureanu eds., 2012).
13 Matthias Klatt & Moritz Meister, The Constitutional Structure of Proportionality (2012).
14 E.g., Malcolm D. Evans, From Cartoons to Crucifixes: Current Controversies Concerning the Freedom of Religion and the Freedom of Expression Before the European Court of Human Rights, in Civil Liberties, National Security and Prospects for Consensus: Legal, Philosophical and Religious Perspectives 83, 85, and 91 (Esther D. Reed & Michael Dumper eds., 2012) (arguing that “the basic approach outlined by the Court has considerable merit” and “seems to work rather well”).
15 See European Court of Human Rights, Factsheet—Protection of Reputation (2019), https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Reputation_ENG.pdf (providing a periodically updated overview of the most pertinent defamation cases in the European Court).
16 Contrast, e.g., Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 295 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A, 1994); Í.A v. Turkey, 2005-VIII Eur. Ct. H.R.; Giniewski v. France, 2006-I Eur. Ct. H.R.
17 See Jerusalem v. Austria, 2001-II Eur. Ct. H.R.; Feldek v. Slovakia, 2001-VIII Eur. Ct. H.R.
18 E.S. v. Austria, App. No. 38450/12, Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 57 (Oct. 25, 2018).
19 Id. ¶ 46.
20 Id. ¶ 53.
21 For further discussion, see Stijn Smet, Free Speech Versus Religious Feelings, the Sequel: Defamation of the Prophet Muhammad in E.S. v Austria, 15 Eu. Const. L. Rev. 158 (2019).