• facebook
Author: Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias
E-mail 1: aggrabias@gmail.com
Institution: Polish Academy of Sciences (Poland)
Author: Grażyna Baranowska
E-mail: baranowska.g@gmail.com
Institution: Polish Academy of Sciences (Poland)
Year of publication: 2016
Source: Show
Pages: 117-129
DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.15804/ppsy2016009
PDF: ppsy/45/2016009.pdf

The article demonstrates how references to Nazi and Soviet past are perceived and evaluated by the European Court of Human Rights. Individual cases concerning Holocaust and Nazism, which the Court has examined so far, are compared here to judgments rendered with regard to Communist regime. The article proves that the Court treats more leniently state interference with freedom of expression when memory about Nazism and Holocaust is protected than when a post–Communist state wants to preserve a critical memory about the regime. The authors of the article agree with the attitude of the Court which offers a wide margin of appreciation to states restrictively treating references to Nazism and Holocaust, including comparisons to the Holocaust, Nazism or fascism used as rhetorical devices. At the same time they postulate that other totalitarian systems should be treated by the Court equally. 

ECtHR:

  • Handyside v. the United Kingdom, no. 5493/72, judgment of 7 December 1976
  • B.H, M.W, H.P and G.K. v. Austria, no. 12774/87, Commission’s inadmissibility decision of 12 October 1989
  • Nachtmann v. Austria, no. 36773/97, Commission’s inadmissibility decision of 9 September 1998
  • Schimanek v. Austria, no. 32307/96, inadmissibility decision of 1 February 2000
  • Wabl v. Austria, no. 24773/94, judgment of 21 March 2000
  • Garaudy v. France, no. 65831/01, inadmissibility decision of 24 June 2003
  • Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft mBH v. Austria, no. 38384/98, judgment of 13 November 2003
  • Ždanoka v. Latvia, no. 58278/00, judgment of 17 June 2004
  • Partidul Comuniştilor (Nepeceristi) and Ungureanu v. Romania, no. 46626/99, judgment of 3 February 2005
  • Ždanoka v. Latvia, no. 58278/00, Great Chamber judgment of 16 March 2006
  • Dyuldin and Kislov v Russia, no. 25968/02, judgment of 31 July 2007
  • Bodrožić v. Serbia, no. 32550/05, judgment of 23 June 2009
  • Hoffer and Annen v. Germany, no. 397/07 and 2322/07, judgment of 13 January 2011
  • Fratanoló v. Hungary, no. 29459/10, judgment of 3 November 2011
  • PETA v. Germany, no. 43481/09, judgment of 8 November 2012
  • Perinçek v. Switzerland, no. 27/08510, judgment of 17 December 2013
  • Maciejewski v Poland, no. 34447/05 judgment of 13 January 2015

References:

  • Belavusau U. (2015). “Memory Laws and Freedom of Speech: Governance of History in European Law”, In Koltay A. (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Fundamentals of Freedom of Speech, Wolters Kluwer, pp. 537–558.
  • Belavusau U. (2014. February 13). Armenian Genocide v. Holocaust in Strasbourg: Trivialisation in Comparison [blog comment]. Retrieved from: http://verfassungsblog.de/armenian–genocide–v–holocaust–in–strasbourg–trivialisation–in–comparison/.
  • Buratti A., (2013) “Histories, Traditions and Contexts in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights”. In Repetto (eds.), The Constitutional Relevance of the ECHR in domestic and European Law, Intersentia, pp. 173–188.
  • Buyse A. (2011) “The Truth, the Past, and the Present. Article 10 ECHR and Situation of Transition”. In Buyse A., Hamilton M, (eds.) Transitional Jurisprudence and the ECHR, Cambridge University Press, pp. 131–150.
  • Flauss J.–F., (2006) “L’histoire dans la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme” , Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme 65/2006, pp 5–22.
  • Geyer M., Fitzpatrick S. (eds.) (2009). Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism Compared, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gliszczyńska–Grabias A. (2014) “Memory Law or Memory Loss? Europe in Search of Its Historical Identity through the National and International Law”, Polish Yearbook of International Law, 34, pp. 161–186.
  • Gliszczyńska–Grabias A. (2016) Communism Equals or Versus Nazism? Europe’s Unwholesome Legacy in Strasbourg, East European Politics and Societies, 30, pp. 74–96.
  • Heinze E. (2016) “Beyond ‘Memory Laws’: Towards a General Theory of Law and Historical Discourse”. In Belavusau U., Gliszczyńska–Grabias A. (eds.) Law and Memory: Addressing Historical Injustice by Law, Cambridge University Press (forthcoming).
  • Kamiński I.C. (2010a). “Historical Situations in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg”. Polish Yearbook of International Law, 30, pp. 9–60.
  • Kamiński I (2010b). Ograniczenia swobody wypowiedzi dopuszczalne w Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka. Analiza krytyczna. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer.
  • Loytomaki S. (2014). Law and the Politics of Memory. Confronting the Past. New York: Routledge.
  • Neumann K., Thompson J. (2015). Historical Justice and Memory. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
  • Rosenstiel F. (2000), From One Council of Europe to Another: a Pan–European Trajectory, Justice Magazine 24, pp. 21–24.
  • Sierp. A. (2014). History, Memory, and Trans–European Identity: Unifying Divisions. New York and London: Routledge.
  • Snyder T. (2010). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. New York: Basic Books.
  • Snyder T. (2015). “European Mass Killing and European Commemoration”. In V. Tismaneanu, B.C. Iacob (eds.) Remembrance, history, and justice. Coming to Terms with Traumatic Pasts in Democratic Societies (p. 23–43). New York: Central European University Press.
  • Sweeney J.A. (2013), The European Court of Human Rights in the Post–Cold War Era: Universality in Transition, New York: Routledge.

 

Message to:

 

 

© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart

Korzystając z naszej strony, wyrażasz zgodę na wykorzystywanie przez nas plików cookies . Zaktualizowaliśmy naszą politykę przetwarzania danych osobowych (RODO). Więcej o samym RODO dowiesz się tutaj.