Holocaust denial in a parliamentary speech: criminal conviction not a breach of Article 10

11 October 2019 by

Pastörs -v- Germany (Case no. 55225/14))

On 3 October 2019 the European Court of Human Rights dismissed an application by former NDP leader Udo Pastörs that his criminal conviction in Germany for making a “qualified Auschwitz denial” in a parliamentary speech infringed his right to freedom of speech under Article 10 ECHR. The Court held that, although interferences over statements made in parliament must be closely scrutinised, they deserve little, if any, protection if their content is at odds with the democratic values of the ECHR system.

Previous Holocaust denial cases before the European Court have arisen from statements made in various media, including a book (Garaudy -v- France (dec.), no. 65831/01, 24 June 2003), a TV show (Williamson -v- Germany, no. 64496/17, 8 January 2019) and even as part of a comedy routine (M’Bala M’Bala -v- France, no. 25239/13, 20 October 2015). This time the Court was called upon to consider statements made in a parliamentary context. The case involves ultra-right wing nationalist politics, parliamentary immunity from prosecution, the parliament’s ability to self-regulate that immunity, and the courts as final arbiters of such disputes. Although the statements concerned were made back in 2010, 9 years later the case still feels very topical.

Background facts and law

The National Democratic Party of Germany (NDP) is an extreme right-wing nationalist political party. In January 2010, Udo Pastörs was a representative member of the NDP in the Land Parliament of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (the “MWP Parliament”). On 28 January 2010, the day after a parliamentary event to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day, Mr Pastörs gave a speech in the MWP Parliament. His speech included the following passage (emphasis added):

With the exception of the groups whose cooperation you have bought, hardly anyone is truly, emotionally taking part in your theatrical display of concern. And why is that? Because people can sense that the so-called Holocaust is being used for political and commercial purposes … Since the end of the Second World War, Germans have been exposed to an endless barrage of criticism and propagandistic lies – cultivated in a dishonest manner primarily by representatives of the so-called democratic parties, ladies and gentlemen. Also, the event that you organised here in the castle yesterday was nothing more than you imposing your Auschwitz projections onto the German people in a manner that is both cunning and brutal. You are hoping, ladies and gentlemen, for the triumph of lies over truth.

The court of first instance in Germany concluded that Mr Pastörs had, by this passage, denied in a qualified manner the systematic mass extermination of Holocaust victims carried out at Auschwitz during the Third Reich (qualifizierte Auschwitzleugnung – “qualified Auschwitz denial”). The court assessed the passage linguistically and in the context of the speech as a whole. The proximity of the terms “lie” and “projection” in close succession were found to have the same intended meaning. The court said that the speech had been drafted in such a way so as to include the Auschwitz denial “as if inserting poison into a glass of water, hoping that it would not be detected immediately”. 

Pastörs was found guilty under Articles 187 and 189 of the German Criminal Code of: (1) defamation of victims of the Holocaust and (2) violation of the memory of the dead. 

Article 24 of the Constitution of the MWP Parliament grants immunity from prosecution for statements made in the Parliament. However, the immunity is expressly excludes statements which are intentionally defamatory. Parliamentary representatives can therefore be criminally prosecuted for defamation, provided the Parliament gives its permission – which in this case it did, on 1 February 2019. Pastörs was given a suspended prison sentence of 8 months, upheld on appeal.

Article 17 and Article 10 ECHR: a wholly incompatible claim, or a justified interference?

Pastörs argued that his conviction was an unlawful violation of his Article 10 rights to freedom of expression. The German government argued that under Article 17 ECHR, Pastörs’ application itself was incompatible rationae materiae with the very principles of the ECHR. In the alternative, Germany argued that the conviction constituted a justified interference with Pastörs’ rights, pursuant to Article 10(2).

The European Court found in favour of the German government on the basis of Article 10(2). It said that the application of Article 17 was something to be considered on a case-by-case basis. In this case, Pastörs’ statement showed a disdain for the victims of the Holocaust which spoke in favour of a finding of incompatibility. On the other hand, the freedom of expression of members of parliament was of particular importance and any interference called for the closest scrutiny of the Court. The Court therefore applied Article 10(2), using Article 17 as an aid in interpretation to reinforce the necessity of the interference. 

Applying Article 10(2): although the conviction did constitute an interference with Pastörs’ Article 10 rights, the interference (1) was prescribed by law (under the German Criminal Code), (2) pursued a legitimate aim (protecting the reputation and rights of others), and (3) was necessary in a democratic society. On this last point, the Court engaged Article 17. It emphasised that Pastörs had planned his speech in advance, had chosen certain words deliberately, and had resorted to obfuscation to get his message across. He had sought to use his right to freedom of expression to promote ideas contrary to the text and spirit of the ECHR. The Court held that, although interferences over statements made in parliament must be closely scrutinised, they deserve little, if any, protection if their content is at odds with the democratic values of the ECHR system.

Judicial impartiality – Article 6

Pastörs’ application to the European Court also raised a second complaint: that his right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR had been violated due the lack of impartiality of one of the judges in the third-instance German appellate court (“judge X”), who was married to the first-instance judge who had initially heard the case. Judge X had also been part of the panel which heard a bias complaint against him. The European Court was split on this issue. It ruled (by four judges to three) that there was no violation of Article 6, because the bias complaint had subsequently been assessed by a separate panel of judges.  However, three judges dissented, saying that the review by the separate panel of judges was not sufficient to remedy any apparent bias: it had dealt only with the bias complaint and not the merits of Pastörs’ appeal. The dissenting judges emphasised that “justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done”, and that any judge in respect of whom there is a legitimate reason to fear a lack of impartiality must withdraw.

Joanna Curtis is a solicitor and one of the UK Human Rights Blog’s new contributors on Strasbourg cases. 

Further reading:


  1. Andrew says:

    Yes it will. The ECtHR is not an EU institution.

  2. Stephen Cowley says:

    Thank goodness for Brexit. A “human right to free expression” that leaves educated people unable to speak their mind on an important topic is worthless. After Brexit, the ECHR will no longer have jurisdiction over the UK.

  3. Jett Rucker says:

    Criminal prosecution for expressing a historical opinion. This is what we’ve come to, legally in Europe, effectively everywhere else except perhaps for Muslim regimes. God (or Allah) help us.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: