Abstract

Freedom of speech and the case law of the ECHR all the more frequently have been dealing recently with the statements using the words “Nazi”, “neo-Nazi”, “fascist”. Still 20 years ago such words were considered as infringing personal interests, whereas today they may be treated somewhat differently in the judgements of the ECHR as fitting in the freedom of expression. Of course, such a thesis is not adopted a priori, and considered are also such issues as the place and context of a statement, its purpose, participation in a public debate, but also whether the speaker or the addressee are public figures. The ECHR offer special protection to political statements (made in a political discourse) as well as satire (including political satire) and the media right to disseminate information.

In many of its judgments the ECHR reminds that strong, extremal, shocking opinions or value judgments serve the political debate and frequently constitute an assessment of conduct of a given person. In the opinion of the Court, such words as “Nazi”, “neo-Nazi”, “fascist” used in public statements are disconnected from their historical meaning and focus rather on their contemporary understanding.

The article discusses several judgements passed by the European Court of Human Rights presenting a brief history of a statement, its context and verdicts of national courts. It is significant as in most cases national courts had been much stricter than the ECHR finding the person who made the statement guilty of an offence.