Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Criminalizing the Denial of 1915–1916 Armenian Massacres and the European Court of Human Rights: Perinçek v Switzerland

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Armenian Massacres of 1915–1916 a Hundred Years Later

Part of the book series: Studies in the History of Law and Justice ((SHLJ,volume 15))

  • 455 Accesses

Abstract

In Perinçek v Switzerland, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights strikes a delicate balance between the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 ECHR) and the freedom of expression (Article 10 ECHR), and refers to the requirements of lawful limitations (interferences) in relation to the denial of the Metz Yeghern—perpetrated against the Armenians in 1915–1916—as a genocide. The case originated from an application against Switzerland lodged with the Court by Doğu Perinçek, a chairman of the Turkish Workers’ Party, who during three public events in 2005 in Switzerland stated that the mass deportation and massacres suffered by the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire did not amount to genocide and were “an international lie.” Perinçek was found guilty by the Swiss judges of the offence under Article 261bis(4), of the Criminal Swiss Code, which punishes “any person who […] denies, grossly trivializes or seeks to justify a genocide or other crimes against humanity.” He thus decided to apply to the ECtHR in 2008 alleging that his criminal conviction was in breach of his freedom of expression and his right not be punished without law. On 12 November 2013 the Second Section of the Court held that there had been a breach of Article 10 ECHR, and on 17 March 2014 the Swiss government requested to refer the case to the Grand Chamber. Finally, on 15 October 2015, the latter confirmed that the conviction of the applicant represented a limitation to his freedom of expression not necessary in a democratic society, in accordance with Article 10(2) ECHR.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Spatti, in this book.

  2. 2.

    Macovei (2004), p. 1–15; Schabas (2015), p. 444–481.

  3. 3.

    Handyside v United Kingdom, App. no. 5493/72 (ECtHR [GC], 7 December 1976), para. 49. More recently see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v France, Apps. nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02 (ECtHR [GC], 22 October 2007), para. 45; Guja v Moldova, App. no. 14277/04 (ECtHR [GC], 12 February 2008), para. 69.

  4. 4.

    Lingens v Austria, App. no. 9815/82 (ECtHR, Court Plenary, 8 July 1986), para. 41; Sener v Turkey, App. no. 26680/95 (ECtHR, Section III, 18 July 2000), para. 41; Thoma v Luxembourg, App. no. 38432/97 (ECtHR, Section II, 29 March 2001), paras. 58, 62; Dichand and Others v Austria, App. no. 29271/95 (ECtHR, Former Section III, 26 February 2002), para. 39.

  5. 5.

    Lingens v Austria, App. no. 9815/82 (ECtHR, Court Plenary, 8 July 1986), para. 46; Dichand and Others v Austria, App. no. 29271/95 (ECtHR, Former Section III, 26 February 2002), para. 42.

  6. 6.

    Jerusalem v Austria, App. no. 26958/95 (ECtHR, Section III, 27 February 2001), para. 43.

  7. 7.

    Thoma v Luxembourg, App. no. 38432/97 (ECtHR, Section II, 29 March 2001), paras. 43–46.

  8. 8.

    Thorgeir Thorgeirson v Iceland, App. no. 13778/88 (ECtHR, Chamber, 25 June 1992), para. 63.

  9. 9.

    Informationsverein Lentia v Austria, Apps. nos. 13914/88; 15041/89; 15717/89; 15779/89 and 17207/90 (ECtHR, Chamber, 24 November 1993), paras. 30–44.

  10. 10.

    Handyside v United Kingdom, App. no. 5493/72 (ECtHR [GC], 7 December 1976), para. 49.

  11. 11.

    VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v Switzerland, App. no. 24699/94 (ECtHR, Section II, 28 June 2001), para. 52; Rotaru v Romania, App. no. 28341/95 (ECtHR [GC], 4 May 2000), para. 52; Amann v Switzerland, App. no. 27798/95 (ECtHR [GC], 16 February 2000), para. 65.

  12. 12.

    Perinçek v Switzerland, App. no. 27510/08 (ECtHR [GC], 15 October 2015), para. 196, ii); Lehideux and Isorni v France, App. no. 24662/94 (ECtHR [GC], 23 September 1998), para. 51.

  13. 13.

    In Perinçek v Switzerland, App. no. 27510/08 (ECtHR [GC], 15 October 2015), para. 196, i), the Grand Chamber affirms besides that ‘the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly’. About the requirement that an interference be ‘necessary in a democratic society’ see also Animal Defenders International v The United Kingdom, App. no. 48876/08 (ECtHR [GC], 22 April 2013), para. 100 and Mouvement raëlien suisse v Switzerland, App. no. 16354/06 (ECtHR [GC], 13 July 2012), para. 48.

  14. 14.

    Perinçek v Switzerland, App. no. 27510/08 (ECtHR [GC], 15 October 2015), para. 196, iii).

  15. 15.

    Ibidem.

  16. 16.

    Ibidem, para. 197. See also Lykin v Ukraine, App. no. 19382/08 (ECtHR, Section II, 12 January 2017), para. 26.

  17. 17.

    Wingrove v The United Kingdom, App. no. 17419/90 (ECtHR, 25 November 1996), para. 58.

  18. 18.

    Ceylan v Turkey, App. no. 23556/94 (ECtHR [GC], 8 July 1999), para. 34.

  19. 19.

    Animal Defenders International v The United Kingdom, App. no. 48876/08 (ECtHR [GC], 22 April 2013), para. 102.

  20. 20.

    Perinçek v Switzerland, App. no. 27510/08 (ECtHR [GC], 15 October 2015), para. 205. See also Balsytė-Lideikienė v Lithuania, App. no. 72596/01 (ECtHR, Section III, 4 November 2008), para. 78; Soulas and Others v France, App. no. 15948/03 (ECtHR, Section V, 10 July 2008), paras. 38–39; Le Pen v France, App. no. 18788/09 (ECtHR, Section V, 20 April 2010), para. 1 (En droit).

  21. 21.

    Perinçek v Switzerland, App. no. 27510/08 (ECtHR [GC], 15 October 2015), para. 206. See also Gündüz v Turkey, App. no. 35071/97 (ECtHR, Section I, 4 December 2003), paras. 48, 51; Féret v Belgium, App. no. 15615/07 (ECtHR, Section II, 17 July 2009), paras. 69–73, 78; Fáber v Hungary, App. no. 40721/08 (ECtHR, Section II, 24 July 2012), paras. 52, 56–58; Vona v Hungary, App. no. 35943/10 (ECtHR, Section II, 9 July 2013), paras. 64–67; Özgür Gündem v Turkey, App. no. 23144/93 (ECtHR, Section IV, 16 March 2000), para. 64; Hizbut-Tahrir and Others v Germany, App. no. 31098/08 (ECtHR, Section V, 12 June 2012), para. 73.

  22. 22.

    Perinçek v Switzerland, App. no. 27510/08 (ECtHR [GC], 15 October 2015), para. 206. See also Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov v Russia, App. nos. 26261/05 and 26377/06 (ECtHR, Section I, 14 March 2013), para. 106; Norwood v The United Kingdom, App. no. 23131/03 (ECtHR, Section II, 16 November 2004), para. 2; Féret v Belgium, App. no. 15615/07 (ECtHR, Section II, 17 July 2009), para. 71; Soulas and Others v France, App. no. 15948/03 (ECtHR, Section V, 10 July 2008), paras. 40, 43; Le Pen v France, App. no. 18788/09 (ECtHR, Section V, 20 April 2010), para. 1 (En droit); Hizbut-Tahrir and Others v Germany, App. no. 31098/08 (ECtHR, Section V, 12 June 2012), para. 73.

  23. 23.

    Perinçek v Switzerland, App. no. 27510/08 (ECtHR [GC], 15 October 2015), para. 208.

  24. 24.

    Ibidem. See also Karataş v Turkey, App. no. 23168/94 (ECtHR [GC], 8 July 1999), paras. 51–52; Gündüz v Turkey, App. no. 35071/97 (ECtHR, Section I, 4 December 2003), paras. 43–44; Féret v Belgium, App. no. 15615/07 (ECtHR, Section II, 17 July 2009), para. 76; Fáber v Hungary, App. no. 40721/08 (ECtHR, Section II, 24 July 2012), paras. 44–45; Vona v Hungary, App. no. 35943/10 (ECtHR, Section II, 9 July 2013), paras. 64–69.

  25. 25.

    Perinçek v Switzerland, App. no. 27510/08 (ECtHR [GC], 15 October 2015), para. 214. See also Lehideux and Isorni v France, App. no. 24662/94 (ECtHR [GC], 23 September 1998), para. 47. In Chauvy and Others v France, App. no. 64915/01 (ECtHR, Section II, 29 June 2004), para. 69, the Chamber affirms: ‘The Court considers that it is an integral part of freedom of expression to seek historical truth and it is not the Court’s role to arbitrate the underlying historical issues, which are part of a continuing debate between historians that shapes opinion as to the events which took place and their interpretation.’ See also Monnat v Switzerland, App. no. 73604/01 (ECtHR, Section III, 21 September 2006), para. 57; Fatullayev v Azerbaijan, App. no. 40984/07 (ECtHR, Section I, 22 April 2010), para. 87; Giniewski v France, App. no. 64016/00 (ECtHR, Section I, 31 January 2006), para. 51.

  26. 26.

    Perinçek v Switzerland, App. no. 27510/08 (ECtHR [GC], 15 October 2015), para. 220.

  27. 27.

    Ibidem, para. 216. See also Lehideux and Isorni v France, App. no. 24662/94 (ECtHR [GC], 23 September 1998), para. 53; Orban and Others v France, App. no. 20985/05 (ECtHR, 15 January 2009), paras. 46, 49, 51; Stankov and the United Macedonian Organization Ilinden v Bulgaria, Apps. nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95 (ECtHR, Section I, 2 October 2001), paras. 102, 106.

  28. 28.

    Perinçek v Switzerland, App. no. 27510/08 (ECtHR [GC], 15 October 2015), para. 217. See also Stankov and the United Macedonian Organization Ilinden v Bulgaria, cit., para. 106; Orban and Others v France, App. no. 20985/05 (ECtHR, 15 January 2009), para. 52.

  29. 29.

    Perinçek v Switzerland, App. no. 27510/08 (ECtHR [GC], 15 October 2015), para. 218. See also Stankov and the United Macedonian Organization Ilinden v Bulgaria, cit., paras. 102–103, 110.

  30. 30.

    Perinçek v Switzerland, App. no. 27510/08 (ECtHR [GC], 15 October 2015), para. 219. See also Lehideux and Isorni v France [GC], App. no. 24662/94 (ECtHR [GC], 23 September 1998), para. 55; Orban and Others v France, App. no. 20985/05 (ECtHR, 15 January 2009), para. 52.

  31. 31.

    Lehideux and Isorni v France [GC], App. no. 24662/94 (ECtHR [GC], 23 September 1998), para. 47.

  32. 32.

    B.H., M.W. and G.K v Austria, App. no. 12774/87 (12 October 1989); Wallendy v Germany, App. no. 211182/92 (11 January 1995); Remer v Germany, App. no. 25096/94 (6 September 1995); Honsik v Austria, App. no. 25062/94 (18 October 1995); Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Bezirsverband München–Oberbayern v Germany, App. no. 25992/94 (29 November 1995); Rebhandl v Austria, App. no. 24398/94 (16 January 1996); Marais v France, App. no. 31159/96 (24 June 1996); D.I. v Germany, App. no. 26551/95 (26 June 1996); Nachtmann v Austria, App. no. 36773/97 (9 September 1998).

  33. 33.

    Schimanek v Austria, App. no. 32307/06 (ECtHR, Section I, 1 February 2000); Garaudy v France, App. no. 65831/01 (ECtHR, Section IV, 24 June 2003); Witzsch v Germany (no. 2), App. no. 7485/03 (ECtHR, Section IV, 13 December 2005); Gollnisch v France, App. no. 48135/08 (ECtHR, Section V, 7 June 2011).

  34. 34.

    M’Bala M’Bala v France, App. no. 25239/13 (ECtHR, Section V, 20 October 2015), paras. 32–39.

  35. 35.

    Ždanoka v Latvia, App. no. 58278/00 (ECtHR [GC], 16 March 2006), para. 99.

  36. 36.

    Perinçek v Switzerland, App. no. 27510/08 (ECtHR [GC], 15 October 2015), para. 114; Paksas v Lithuania, App. no. 34932/04 (ECtHR [GC], 6 January 2011), para. 87.

  37. 37.

    Perinçek v Switzerland, App. no. 27510/08 (ECtHR [GC], 15 October 2015), para. 114. See also Norwood v The United Kingdom, cit., para. 2. For a comment on Article 17 see Buyse (2014), 491–503; Cannie and Voorhoof (2011), 54–83; Keane (2007), 641–663.

  38. 38.

    Perinçek v Switzerland, App. no. 27510/08 (ECtHR [GC], 15 October 2015), para. 114. See also Hizbut-Tahrir and Others v Germany, App. no. 31098/08 (ECtHR, Section V, 12 June 2012), paras. 73–74, 78; Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov v Russia, App. nos. 26261/05 and 26377/06 (ECtHR, Section I, 14 March 2013), paras. 106–113.

  39. 39.

    Garaudy v France, App. no. 65831/01 (ECtHR, Section IV, 24 June 2003), para. 1 (En droit).

  40. 40.

    Ibidem.

  41. 41.

    Ibidem.

  42. 42.

    Perinçek v Switzerland, App. no. 27510/08 (ECtHR [GC], 15 October 2015), para. 115. See also United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v Turkey, App. no. 19392/92 (ECtHR [GC], 30 January 1998), para. 32; Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v Turkey, Apps. nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98 (ECtHR [GC], 13 February 2003), para. 96; Féret v Belgium, App. no. 15615/07 (ECtHR, Section II, 17 July 2009), para. 52; Vona v Hungary, App. no. 35943/10 (ECtHR, Section II, 9 July 2013), para. 38; Varela Geis v Spain, App. no. 61005/09 (ECtHR, Section III, 5 March 2013), para. 31; Soulas and Others v France, App. no. 15948/03 (ECtHR, Section V, 10 July 2008), para. 23.

  43. 43.

    Lehideux and Isorni v France, App. no. 24662/94 (ECtHR [GC], 23 September 1998), para. 53; Orban and Others v France, App. no. 20985/05 (ECtHR, 15 January 2009), paras. 46, 49, 51.

  44. 44.

    Tribunal Constitucional de España, Sentencia 235/2007, de 7 de noviembre de 2007, Boletín Oficial del Estado, 10 December 2007, n. 295, Suplemento del Tribunal Constitucional, p. 42–59, available on http://www.boe.es. For a comment see Ramós Vazquez (2009), p. 120–137; Bilbao Ubillos (2009), p. 299–352.

  45. 45.

    Article 510(1)(c) of the Spanish Criminal Code reads as follows: ‘Quienes […] públicamente nieguen, trivialicen gravemente o enaltezcan los delitos de genocidio, de lesa humanidad o contra las personas y bienes protegidos en caso de conflicto armado, o enaltezcan a sus autores, cuando se hubieran cometido contra un grupo o una parte del mismo, o contra una persona determinada por razón de su pertenencia al mismo, por motivos racistas, antisemitas u otros referentes a la ideología, religión o creencias, la situación familiar o la pertenencia de sus miembros a una etnia, raza o nación, su origen nacional, su sexo, orientación o identidad sexual, por razones de género, enfermedad o discapacidad, cuando de este modo se promueva o favorezca un clima de violencia, hostilidad, odio o discriminación contra los mismos.’

  46. 46.

    Tribunal Constitucional de España, Sentencia n. 235/2007, II, 8.

  47. 47.

    Ibidem, II, 9. And it continued as follows: ‘Por ello, el legislador puede, dentro de su libertad de configuración, perseguir tales conductas, incluso haciéndolas merecedoras de reproche penal siempre que no se entienda incluida en ellas la mera adhesión ideológica a posiciones políticas de cualquier tipo, que resultaría plenamente amparada por el art. 16 CE y, en conexión, por el art. 20 CE.’

  48. 48.

    Perinçek v Switzerland, App. no. 27510/08 (ECtHR [GC], 15 October 2015), para. 240.

  49. 49.

    Lehideux and Isorni v France, App. no. 24662/94 (ECtHR [GC], 23 September 1998).

  50. 50.

    Garaudy v France, App. no. 65831/01 (ECtHR, Section IV, 24 June 2003).

  51. 51.

    Lehideux and Isorni v France, App. no. 24662/94 (ECtHR [GC], 23 September 1998), para. 47.

  52. 52.

    Garaudy v France, App. no. 65831/01 (ECtHR, Section IV, 24 June 2003), para. 4 (En droit).

  53. 53.

    Ibidem, para. 1 (En droit). And it continues as follows: ‘L’objectif et l’aboutissement d’une telle démarche sont totalement différents, car il s’agit en fait de réhabiliter le régime national-socialiste, et, par voie de conséquence, d’accuser de falsification de l’histoire les victimes elles-mêmes’.

  54. 54.

    Perinçek v Switzerland, App. no. 27510/08 (ECtHR [GC], 15 October 2015), para. 243: ‘Holocaust denial is thus doubly dangerous, especially in States which have experienced the Nazi horrors, and which may be regarded as having a special moral responsibility to distance themselves from the mass atrocities that they have perpetrated or abetted by, among other things, outlawing their denial’.

  55. 55.

    Ibidem.

  56. 56.

    Ibidem, paras. 137–140; 145–157.

  57. 57.

    Ibidem, paras. 227, 252.

  58. 58.

    An attack on the reputation of an ancestor can affect a person’s right protected by Article 8. See Perinçek v Switzerland, App. no. 27510/08 (ECtHR [GC], 15 October 2015), para. 200–203 and Aksu v Turkey, Apps. nos. 4149/04 and 41029/04 (ECtHR [GC], 15 March 2012), paras. 58–61, 81; Putistin v Ukraine, App. no. 16882/03 (ECtHR, Section V, 21 November 2013), paras. 36–41; Jelševar and Others v Slovenia, App. no. 47318/07 (ECtHR, Section V, 11 March 2014), paras. 29–40.

  59. 59.

    Perinçek v Switzerland, App. no. 27510/08 (ECtHR [GC], 15 October 2015), paras. 229–240.

  60. 60.

    Ibidem, para. 231.

  61. 61.

    Ibidem, para. 239.

  62. 62.

    Ibidem, para. 241.

  63. 63.

    Ibidem, paras. 242–250.

  64. 64.

    Ibidem, para. 246.

  65. 65.

    Ibidem, para. 246.

  66. 66.

    Ibidem, para. 250.

  67. 67.

    Ibidem, paras. 251–255.

  68. 68.

    Ibidem, para. 253.

  69. 69.

    Ibidem, paras. 255–257.

  70. 70.

    Ibidem, para. 257.

  71. 71.

    Ibidem, paras. 258–268.

  72. 72.

    Nada v Switzerland, App. no. 10593/08 (ECtHR [GC], 12 September 2012).

  73. 73.

    Perinçek v Switzerland, App. no. 27510/08 (ECtHR [GC], 15 October 2015), para. 268.

  74. 74.

    Ibidem, paras. 269–271.

  75. 75.

    Ibidem, para. 271.

  76. 76.

    Ibidem, paras. 272–273.

  77. 77.

    Ibidem, para. 273.

  78. 78.

    Ibidem, para. 275.

  79. 79.

    Ibidem.

  80. 80.

    Ibidem, para. 280.

  81. 81.

    Ibidem, para. 240.

  82. 82.

    Ibidem, para. 252.

  83. 83.

    Ibidem, para. 13.

  84. 84.

    Ibidem, para. 16

  85. 85.

    Ibidem, para. 253.

References

  • Belavusau U (2013) Freedom of speech. Importing European and US Constitutional models in transitional democracies. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Belavusau U, Gliszczyńska-Grabias A (2017), Law and Memory: Towards Legal Governance of History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilbao Ubillos JM (2009) La negación de un genocidio no es una conducta punible (comentario de la STC). Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional 85:299–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgna G (2015) Il genocidio armeno (non) passa in giudicato: in margine al caso Perinçek. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 9(3):697–704

    Google Scholar 

  • Buyse A (2014) Dangerous expressions: the ECHR, violence and free speech. Int Comp Law Q 63:491–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannie H, Voorhoof D (2011) The abuse clause and freedom of expression in the European Convention of Human Rights. Neth Q Hum Rights 29(1):54–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cascione CM (2016) Genocide denial and freedom of expression in the Perinçek Case: A European overruling or a new approach to negationism. Questions of International Law, Zoom in 28:5–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Della Morte G (2016) Bilanciamento tra libertà di espressione e tutela della dignità umana nella sentenza Perinçek. Rivista di diritto internazionale 1:183–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Directorate General of Human Rights (ed) (2001) Case law concerning Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Flauss J-F (2009) The European Court of Human Rights and the freedom of expression. Indiana Law J 84(3):809–849

    Google Scholar 

  • Fronza E (2012) Il negazionismo come reato. Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Fronza E (2018) Memory and Punishment. Historical Denialism, Free Speech and the Limits of Criminal Law, T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Greer S (2006) The European Convention of Human Rights. Achievements, problems and prospects. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge-New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harris D, O’Boyle M, Carla W (2014) Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford-New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennebel L, Hochmann T (2011) Genocide denials and the law. Oxford University Press, Oxford-New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Herz M, Molnar P (eds) (2012) The content and the context of hate speech. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge-New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochmann T (2013) Le négationnisme face aux limites de la liberté d’expression. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn RA (2004) Holocaust denial and the law. A comparative study. Palgrave MacMillan, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Keane D (2007) Attacking Hate Speech under Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Neth Q Hum Rights 25:641–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiska R (2012) Hate speech: a comparison between the European Court of Human Rights and the United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence. Regent Univ Law Rev 27:107–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Leotta CD (2016) Profili penali del negazionismo. Riflessioni alla luce della sentenza della Corte EDU sul genocidio armeno. Wolter Kluwer-CEDAM, Padova

    Google Scholar 

  • Leotta CD (2016b) Brief remarks on the balancing method ‘truly’ adopted by the ECtHR Grand Chamber in Perinçek v Switzerland. Questions Int Law Zoom 28:29–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobba P (2017) Testing the “Uniqueness”: Denial of the Holocaust vs Denial of Other Crimes before the European Court of Human Rights. In Belavusau U, Gliszczyńska-Grabias A (eds.), Law and Memory: Towards Legal Governance of History: 109–128, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Macaya A (2016) Focus sur Perinçek c Suisse. La question de la limitation à la liberté d’expression nécessaire dans une société démocratique. Questions Int Law Zoom 28:19–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Macovei M (2004) Freedom of expression. A guide to the implementation of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, 2nd edn. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrils JG, Robertson AH (2001) Human Rights in Europe. A study of the European Convention on Human Rights. Manchester University Press, Manchester and New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowbray A (2012) Cases and materials on the European Convention on Human Rights, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford-New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rainey B, Wicks E, Ovey C (2014) Jacobs, White & Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford-New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ramos Vázquez JA (2009) La declaración de inconstitucionalidad del delito de ‘negacionismo’ (art. 607.2 del Código Penal). Revista penal 23:120–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas WA (2015) The European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford University Press, A Commentary. Oxford-New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber A (2009) Manual on hate speech. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Carmelo Domenico Leotta

Authors
  1. Carmelo Domenico Leotta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carmelo Domenico Leotta .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University LUISS-Guido Carli, Rome, Italy

    Flavia Lattanzi

  2. University of Teramo, Teramo, Italy

    Emanuela Pistoia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Leotta, C.D. (2018). Criminalizing the Denial of 1915–1916 Armenian Massacres and the European Court of Human Rights: Perinçek v Switzerland. In: Lattanzi, F., Pistoia, E. (eds) The Armenian Massacres of 1915–1916 a Hundred Years Later. Studies in the History of Law and Justice, vol 15. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78169-3_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78169-3_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78168-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78169-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation