CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 août 1993

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; 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 No. August 1993 Chorherr v. Austria - 13308/87 Judgment 25.8.1993 Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Arrest and imposition of an administrative criminal fine for causing a breach of the peace during a military ceremony: 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.   ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION Arrest in issue founded on administrative laws covered by the Austrian reservation in respect of Article 5 - validity of the reservation to be examined in the light of Article 64 of the Convention, only two of whose conditions called for consideration in this case. "General character" of the reservation - Austrian reservation encompassed limited number of laws which, taken together, constituted a well-defined and coherent body of substantive and procedural provisions - provisions to which reservation applied in this case were all in force at the time of Austria's ratification - degree of generality prohibited by Article 64 § 1 not attained in this instance. Need for a "brief statement of the law concerned" - reference to the Federal Official Gazette made it possible to identify the precise laws and to obtain any information regarding them - provided safeguard against any interpretation which would unduly extend the field of application of the reservation - reservation complied with Article 64 § 2. In sum, the reservation was compatible with Article 64. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION Not in dispute that there had been an interference with the exercise of applicant's right to freedom of expression.   A.   Whether the interference was "prescribed by law" Judgment of the Constitutional Court: nothing to lend weight to the suggestion that wording of the contested provision created situation incompatible with legal certainty - applicant therefore in a position to foresee to reasonable extent risks inherent in his conduct. B.   Whether aim pursued was "legitimate" No grounds for doubting that arrest in issue pursued at least one of the legitimate aims referred to in Article 10 § 2, namely the prevention of disorder. C.   Whether interference was "necessary in a democratic society" States' margin of appreciation: extended in particular to choice of means to be used to ensure that lawful manifestations can take place peacefully. Nature, importance and scale of the military parade could appear to justify strengthening the corresponding security operation -applicant must have realised that his conduct might lead to a disturbance requiring measures of restraint, which, moreover, had been by no means excessive - in short, authorities had not overstepped their margin of appreciation. Conclusion : no violation (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