Amembers and not impede the conduct of that cult or its promotion. If such expressions of freedom of expression would exceed the limits of a strictly objective nonacceptance of the religionbeliefs of others for example in the case of an inappropriate or abusive attack on an object of worship a state may legitimately consider the authors of the attack to be incompatible with freedom of expression conscience and religion and may take restrictive measures proportionate to the determined situation . The Court considers thus thatdomestic authorities have a wide discretion in the case at hand as national courts are in a better position to assess which claims had the vocation to bring an imbalance to the religious peace in their country.
The provisions of article of the Penal Code do not criminalize all conduct contrary to the practice of certain religions that may hurt the feelings of the practitioners but only criminalize those that are able to generate hatred and imbalance at the social level . according to which the value of certain statements is assessed . The claimants defense that her claims were judgments based on facts and not value judgments was not accepted as the claimant failed to attach sufficient factual evidence to her claims. The sanction imposed on the applicant by the domestic courts was less severe than the other options available imprisonment or payment of a fine.
Moreover even the amount of the fine was set by the court at the lower end so that the punishment was not disproportionate to the acts criminalized by the criminal law. Decision Therefore having in the Court considers that the domestic courts did not exceed their margin of appreciation in the present case by sanctioning the denigration of religious doctrines . Therefore there was no violation of Article of the European Convention on Human Rights . In.
發表於 16:25:27
