Global Freedom of Expression

Español

Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria

Closed Mixed Outcome

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Audio / Visual Broadcasting
  • Date of Decision
    September 20, 1995
  • Outcome
    Law or Action Upheld, Criminal Sanctions
  • Case Number
    13470/87
  • Region & Country
    Austria, Europe and Central Asia
  • Judicial Body
    European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
  • Type of Law
    Criminal Law
  • Themes
    Content Regulation / Censorship, Religious Expression

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

Preminger-Institut für audiovisuelle Mediengestaltung (OPI), an Austrian audio-visual media promotion association, announced in May 1985 that it would screen a series of films, including a satirical performance that contained trivial imagery of Christianity. As the announcement was made in a public information bulletin, the public prosecutor instituted a criminal proceeding against the organization at the request of the Roman Catholic Church for disparaging religious doctrines under Section 188 of the Penal Code. And pursuant to the Austrian Media Act, the prosecutor later seized the film and prevented its public distribution.

The European Court of Human Rights did not find the government seizure of the film a violation of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. By taking into account the absence of a uniform position in Europe on the significance of religion in society, the Court held that national authorities were entitled to a certain margin of appreciation in assessing the necessity of imposing restrictions to avoid offending religious beliefs.

 


Facts

Otto-Preminger-Institut für audiovisuelle Mediengestaltung (OPI), was a private association in Innsbruck, Austria that sought to promote creativity, communication and entertainment through the audio-visual media. 

In 1985, the association announced a series of six showings of the film Das Liebeskonzil (“Council in Heaven”). The show was restricted for persons 17 and under. The announcement did not include the contents of the movie itself, but carried a statement that trivial imagery and absurdities of the Christian creed would be caricatured. 

At the request of the Roman Catholic Church, the public prosecutor brought criminal proceedings against OPI’s manager, Mr. Dietmar Zingl, on May 10, 1985. He was charged with the act of “disparaging religious doctrines,” prohibited under Section 188 of the Penal Code.


Decision Overview

The Court first found that the seizure of the film pursued a legitimate aim within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention. It noted that generally “the manner in which religious beliefs and doctrines are opposed or denied is a matter which may engage the responsibility of the State, notably its responsibility to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the right guaranteed under Article 9 to the holders of those beliefs and doctrines.” [para. 47]

In the present case, Section 188 of the Austrian Penal Code was intended to suppress behavior that was directed against religion, and likely to cause “justified indignation.” Thus, according to the Court, its purpose was to protect citizens from having their religious beliefs insulted by public expression. Based on the terms used in the decisions of the Austrian courts, and how they were phrased, the Court found that the seizure as an interference did indeed pursue a legitimate aim. [para. 48]

The Court then discussed the necessity for such seizure and forfeiture in a democratic society. It first reiterated the importance of the Handyside v. United Kingdom, App. No. 5493/72 (1976) rule, which holds that Article 10 of the Convention does not only apply to “‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that shock, offend or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society.’” [para. 49]

Here, the Court first held that the domestic court of Austria did not overstep their margin of appreciation in concluding that there was “a pressing social need” for the preservation of religious peace. While taking into account that public access to the film at issue was subject to payment and age limitation, the Court found that the proposed screening in a city, where Roman Catholic is the majority religion, was widely advertised and therefore, amounted to an expression sufficiently public to cause offense. The Court also considered that in seizing the film, the authorities acted to ensure the religious peace in that region and to prevent people from feeling the object of the attacks on their religious beliefs in an unwarranted and offensive manner. It then applied the same reasoning to the government’s forfeiture of the film.

Accordingly, the Court found that the government seizure and forfeiture of the film did not amount to a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.1


  1. See Religion, morality, blasphemy and obscenity by ARTICLE 19 on further discussion of free speech restrictions for protection of public morals and religious beliefs in the European human rights system, available at: https://www.article19.org/pages/en/religion-morality-blasphemy-obscenity-more.html


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Mixed Outcome

This case clearly shows the limitations and applications for the margin of appreciation. The well known rule of Handyside v. United Kingdom, App. No. 5493/72 (1976) was applied here, and the local authorities have the right to assess and decide what would be politically, socially, and culturally sensitive in the local area. In the application of the margin of appreciation, it is important to outline the impact that it could have on the society. This case neither expands expression nor contracts it, but gives a better understanding towards the application of margin of appreciation and the local interpretation of the law.

Global Perspective

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

The decision was cited in:

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:


Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback