CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 septembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   Communicated on 1 September 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 55225/14 Udo PASTÖRS against Germany lodged on 30 July 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns the criminal conviction of a deputy of a German Land legislature for allegedly denying the Holocaust, and the fact that one of the judges of the Court of Appeal (third instance) was married to one of the judges of the District Court (first instance). [A1]   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention in that he was convicted on 25   March 2013 by the Schwerin Regional Court? In particular, to what extent are the duties and responsibilities inherent in the applicant’s status as a member of the Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania legislature relevant to his claim and the State’s margin of appreciation in this field?   2.     Was the Court of Appeal impartial, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, when dealing with the applicant’s appeal on points of law? In particular, did the fact that the husband of the District Court judge who decided the case at first instance ruled on the applicant’s appeal on points of law and participated in the decision on the motion of bias against him, raise legitimate doubts as to that court’s impartiality?   [A1] ITMARKFactsComplaintsEnd PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE