CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 septembre 1994

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law September 1994 Otto Preminger v. Austria - 13470/87 Judgment 20.9.1994 Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Seizure and forfeiture of a film considered blasphemous: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Alternative plea: raised for the first time before the Court. Conclusion: estopped (unanimously). Principal plea:   applicant association directly affected by forfeiture — seizure was a provisional measure, legality of which confirmed by forfeiture — the two could not be separated — applicant association "victim" of forfeiture as well as seizure — "final decision" therefore judgment on forfeiture - application filed within six-month time-limit. Conclusion : dismissed (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION Not disputed that seizure and forfeiture constituted "interferences" with applicant association's freedom of expression. A.   Prescribed by law No evidence that Austrian courts had wrongly applied national law. B.   Legitimate aim Protection of the rights of others, namely the right of citizens not to be insulted in their religious beliefs by public expression of others' views. C.   Necessary in a democratic society Major principles in Court's case-law recalled. Seizure: as a result of widespread advertising, sufficient public knowledge of nature of film to cause offence, although access to film itself subject to admission fee and age limit - Austrian courts considered film an abusive attack on Roman Catholic religion of majority of Tyrolean public and considered merit of film as work of art or as contribution to public debate insufficient to outweigh offence caused - national authorities better placed than international judge to assess need for such a measure - Austrian authorities did not overstep their margin of appreciation. Forfeiture: normal sequel to seizure under Austrian law - same reasoning applies - Article 10 allows forfeiture in the public interest - national authorities did no exceed their margin of appreciation. Conclusion : no violation on either point (six votes to three).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes