Slovakia / District Court Martin / 13T/175/2017

Country

Slovakia

Title

Slovakia / District Court Martin / 13T/175/2017

View full Case

Year

2019

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Monday, January 28, 2019

Incident(s) concerned/related

Incitement to violence or hatred

Related Bias motivation

Race/Ethnicity
Religion

Groups affected

Muslims

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

District Court Martin

Key facts of the case

The case concerns online incitement to hatred against persons of Islamic religion.

In 2016 unknown author posted a picture of a building depicting the residence of the Association of Muslims in the middle Slovakia and corresponding phone numbers with a commentary: “They have a mosque in Martin. Not with minaret, but still they have.” Defendant commented on this post: “If I find out, where they meet, I´m willing to join and f…k them out of there. What an insolence to do…We have Matica (name of the cultural institution with focus on Slovak nation, does not have equivalent in English) where our Slovak language came from and some d..ck will f…k me here. Honour to our cross, honour to our Matica. I am Slovak and I will be Slovak and I have to protect this land with my hands and legs so some bastards as these do not claim any piece of Martin….” This comment was posted publicly and read by multiple users of the social network.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The defendant was accused of public incitement to violence and hate against group of persons based on their religion and thus committing an offense of incitement, defamation and threat against persons based on their race, nation, nationality, skincolor, ethnic group or origin based on §424a art.1 letter a) of the Criminal Code effective until 31.12.2016 (Act no. 300/2005 Coll Criminal Code).

The verdict does not contain justification, because both prosecutor and the defendant renounced their right to appeal.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

The case did not bring any further clarification/interpretation to the law application.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

The judge issued a verdict sentencing the defendant to prison for a period of 1 year with suspension establishing 2 years probationary period.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

The decision did not contain the reasoning of the court.

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.