Title

Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria

Date

25/01/2007

Country

AUSTRIA (Europe)

Adjudication body

European Court of Human Rights

Territorial scope

International

Case number

68354/01

Main themes

Blasphemy and religion
Defamation
Image rights
Intellectual property
Obscenity and public morals
Respect for private life

Type of expression

Painting
Photograph, photomontage, or manipulated image
Political humor
Sexual, LGBTQ+, or gender humor

Branch of law

Civil Law
International Human Rights Law

Decision direction

Expands expression

Outcome

Violation of Article 10 ECHR

Relation to previous decision

Disagreement

Speaker

Artist or literary author
Gender_Man
NGOs or other organization

Target

Gender_Man
Gender_Woman
Historical figure
Politician, public officer, or public body
Public figure

Link to case

Link to analysis

Summary

Vereinigung Bildender Künstler Wiener Secession is an association of artists. They held an exhibition in which a painting and photomontage entitled ‘Apocalypse’ by Otto Mühl was shown. This work depicted public figures, including the Head of the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ), a Cardinal, and Mother Theresa. He had painted their naked bodies in sexual positions and reproduced their faces with newspaper photographs. A visitor damaged the painting by throwing paint over the section portraying the former general secretary of the FPÖ Mr. Meishberger. Meischberger brought proceedings against the association and was granted an injunction prohibiting the further exhibiting and publishing of the painting under the country's Copyright Act. Section 79 of the act states that images of people cannot be exhibited in public where injury would be caused to the legitimate interests of the portrayed people without their authorisation. Meischberger argued that the painting debased him and his political activities, implying he had disregard for ‘sexual decency and morals’. The Court stated that the painting did not relate to his private life but rather his public standing, as a political figure he should have a wider tolerance of criticism and the artistic and satirical nature of the work should have been considered by the national courts. The court found the injunction violated the Article 10 rights of the association of artists.