Suchergebnisse

Die vorliegende Arbeit analysiert den Umgang mit dem Tatbestand der Holocaust-Leugnung durch die Europäische Union (EU) und den Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (EGMR). Derzeit befinden sich diese in einer heiklen Situation: Sie müssen das Gedenken an ein für die europäische Identität zentrales historisches Ereignis – den Holocaust – pflegen und schützen und zugleich die Achtung der Grundrechte, insbesondere der Meinungsfreiheit, gewährleisten. Diese besondere Situation erfordert eine gründliche Untersuchung des europäischen Umgangs mit dem Tatbestand der Holocaust-Leugnung. Der erste Teil der Dissertation steckt den Anwendungsbereich der europarechtlichen Verpflichtungen zur Kriminalisierung der Holocaust-Leugnung ab. Bewertet wird insbesondere die Bedeutung des Rahmenbeschlusses 2008/913/JHA über Rassismus und Fremdenfeindlichkeit für die EU-Mitgliedstaaten. Dabei werden einige Beispiele der Umsetzung in staatliches Recht dargestellt. Der zweite Teil der Arbeit befasst sich mit der Rechtsprechung des EGMR und untersucht das Verhältnis zwischen dem Tatbestand der Holocaust-Leugnung und der Meinungsfreiheit mit dem Ziel, die Grundsätze, nach denen Staaten verpflichtet sind, entsprechende Äußerungen zu kriminalisieren, herzuleiten. Die übergreifenden Ziele der Untersuchung sind: a) den Charakter des Zusammenspiels zwischen EU und EGMR herauszuarbeiten; b) zu ermitteln, ob die jeweiligen Positionen gegensätzlich oder komplementär sind; c) die Rechtsnatur und den Inhalt der für die Mitgliedstaaten begründeten Verpflichtungen zu bestimmen; d) herauszuarbeiten, ob eine europaweite Kriminalisierung verpflichtend ist oder lediglich gefördert werden soll; und e) ob beziehungsweise unter welchen Bedingungen ein mit Kriminalstrafe sanktioniertes Verbot der Holocaust-Leugnung erstrebenswert wäre. ; The present study aims to analyse the legal treatment of the crime of denialism by the two main actors in European justice, namely, the European Union ('EU') and the European Court of Human Rights ('ECtHR'). Presently, these two systems find themselves in a delicate position: they must cherish and protect the memory of an historical event – the Holocaust – which is central to Europe's own identity, while simultaneously promoting respect for fundamental rights such as the freedom of speech. This unique balance raises a need for a thorough investigation into Europe's approach to the crime of denialism. The dissertation's first section seeks to measure the scope of EU-imposed obligations to make denialism a crime. Notably, the impact on EU Member States of the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on racism and xenophobia is assessed, with illustrations of a few archetypal examples of domestic implementing legislation. The second part of the dissertation turns to the jurisprudence of the ECtHR to examine the relationship between Holocaust denial as a crime and the right to freedom of expression, with a view to deducing the principles under which States must comply in the criminalization of this kind of utterance. The work's overall goals are to assess: a) the nature of interactions between the EU and ECtHR; b) whether their positions on denialism are better portrayed in terms of contrast or mutual support; c) the legal nature and content of the obligations originating for the Member States; d) whether a Europe-wide criminal prohibition on denialism is dictated or simply encouraged; and e) whether such a prohibition would be desirable, and if so, under what conditions.

La presente indagine mira ad esaminare, in chiave innovativa, i rapporti tra l'Europa ed un reato prettamente europeo: il negazionismo. Sviluppatosi in maniera assolutamente predominante nel nostro continente, le ragioni della sua diffusione sono molteplici. Al di là della lotta a razzismo ed antisemitismo, il motivo principale va identificato nel ruolo "fondativo" che riveste la memoria dell'Olocausto in Europa, collocata nel cuore dell'universo valoriale su cui si reggono i due principali attori europei, ovverosia l'Unione europea e la Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo. La ricerca, dunque, ruota attorno a due poli tematici. Da un lato, sono state esaminate le politiche normative dell'Unione europea in materia di razzismo e xenofobia, entro cui spicca la promozione dell'incriminazione del negazionismo "allargato", cioè esteso alle condotte di negazione non solo dell'Olocausto, ma anche degli altri crimini internazionali. Dall'altro lato, l'analisi della trentennale giurisprudenza della Corte di Strasburgo in materia ha evidenziato come, con riguardo alle manifestazioni negazioniste, sia stato elaborato uno "statuto speciale", che si risolve nel perentorio diniego di tutela per questa categoria di opinioni, sottratte a monte all'ordinario giudizio di bilanciamento in quanto giudicate incompatibili con i valori sottesi alla CEDU. Lo scopo di questo lavoro riposa nel tentativo di individuare le interazioni tra questi due sistemi istituzionali, per interpretare una tendenza che converge con nettezza verso un incremento della repressione penale della parola. Da questo complesso intreccio di norme e principi, di hard law e soft law, sarà possibile enucleare la natura giuridica ed il contenuto delle richieste di incriminazione rivolte agli Stati membri. Una volta appurato che agli Stati è concesso di restringere il campo di applicazione del reato di negazionismo, adottando degli indici di pericolosità delle condotte, sarà analizzata la tenuta di questi "elementi opzionali del reato" alla luce dei principi penalistici di tassatività, materialità, offensività e laicità. ; The present study aims to analyse the legal treatment of the crime of denialism by the two main European actors, namely the European Union ('EU') and the European Court of Human Rights ('ECtHR'). These two systems find themselves in a delicate position that raises a need for deep investigation. They have to cherish and protect the memory of a historical event that is central to their own identity, whereas at the same time promoting the respect of fundamental rights such as freedom of speech. The first section seeks to identify the obligations stemming from the EU legal system, the institutional mandate of which is to harmonise criminal legislation of Member States by setting some basic common elements. Notably, the impact on domestic systems of the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on racism and xenophobia shall be assessed. The second part of the present research shall turn to the jurisprudence of the ECtHR to examine the relationship between Holocaust denial as a crime and the right to freedom of expression, with a view to deducing the principles with which States have to comply in the criminalisation of this kind of utterance. The overall goals shall be to identify: a) the interactions between these two systems; b) whether their policies on denialism may be better portrayed in terms of contrast or mutual support; c) the legal nature and content of the obligations originating for the Member States; d) whether a Europe-wide criminal prohibition on denialism appears likely to occur, whether it would be desirable and, if so, under which conditions.

The grammar of the judicial dialogue between International Criminal Tribunals and the European Court : introductory remarks / Paolo Lobba and Triestino Mariniello -- Cross-fertilisation under the Looking Glass : transjudicial grammar and reception of Strasbourg jurisprudence by International Criminal Tribunals / Sergey Vasiliev -- 'Directory authority' : fertilising International Criminal Tribunals' human rights standards with European Court of Human Rights' case law / Julia Geneuss -- Judicial dialogue in light of comparative criminal law and justice / Christoph Burchard -- Article 21 (3) of the ICC Statute : identifying and applying 'Internationally recognized human rights' / Volker Nerlich -- Article 21(3) of the ICC statue and 'Internationally recognized Human Rights' as a cource of mandatory judicial dialogue / Christophe Deprez -- Beyond anecdotal reference : a quantitative assessment of ICTY reerences to the jurisprudence of the ECtHR / Frauke Sauerwein -- The Nula poena Sine Lego : a symptomatic sign of interactions between Strasbourg and The Hague / Damien Scalia -- Critical remarks on the Accessibility/ foreseeability standard as applied in International criminal justice / Giulio Vanacore -- The judicial dialogue between the ECtHR and the ad hoc Tribunals on the right to rehabilitation of offenders / Alice Riccardi -- Judicial diaogue and the definition of torture : the importation of ICTS from European jurisprudence / Elena Maculan -- Confronting the divergent notions of torture and other-ill treatment under the Rome Statute through the lens of cumulative conviction / Elizbeth Santalla Vargas -- Absent witnesses and the right to confrontation : the influence of the jurisprudence of the European court of human rights on International criminal law / Yvonne McDermott -- The special court for Sierra Leone's misapplication of the European court of human rights case law on hearsay evidence and corroboration : the Taylor appeal judgment and the Al Khawaja and Tahery case / Yael Vias Gvirsman -- The interaction between te International Criminal Court and the European Court of Human Rights : the right to the truth for victims of serious violations of human rights : the importation of a new right? / Paolo Caroli -- Self- or cross-fertilisation? Referencing ECtHR jurisprudence to justify victim participation at the ICC / Kerstin Braun

Judicial Dialogue on Human Rights' offers a critical legal perspective on the manner in which international criminal tribunals select, (re- )interpret and apply the principles and standards formulated by the European Court of Human Rights. A part of the book is devoted to test the assumption that the current practice of cross-referencing, though widespread, is incoherent in method and erratic in substance. Notable illustrations analysed in the book include the nullum crimen principle, prohibition of torture, hearsay evidence and victims? rights. Another section of the book seeks to devise a methodologically sound?grammar? of judicial dialogue, focussing on how and when human rights concepts may be transferred into the context of international criminal justice.