Czech Republic / Constitutional Court / ECLI:CZ:US:2022:2.US.2120.21.1

Country

Czechia

Title

Czech Republic / Constitutional Court / ECLI:CZ:US:2022:2.US.2120.21.1

View full Case

Year

2022

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Tuesday, October 04, 2022

Incident(s) concerned/related

Incitement to violence or hatred

Related Bias motivation

Religion

Groups affected

Refugees & asylum seekers

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud)

Key facts of the case

The case concerns a theatre play depicting the rape of a Muslim woman by Jesus Christ and the performance of oral sex on a statue of Pope John Paul II. The complainants, previously plaintiffs before a civil court, sought protection of their rights by asking for an apology from the authors of the play as they felt negatively affected by the artistic expression.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The complainants claim that the showing of the two plays interfered, albeit not directly or in the complainants´ physical presence, with the complainants´ human dignity and religious freedom. The complainants are asking the Court to decide on two points: who has the right to defend the honour and reputation of Jesus Christ and John Paul II as representatives of the faith practised by the complainants, and who has the right to insult and ridicule the faith, and where the limits of the freedom of artistic creation lie.

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

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion shall prevail over freedom of expression. According to the complainants, it is clear from the ECtHR's case law that the right to freedom of expression and thought, conscience and religion conflict when considering blasphemous speech. The conflict requires a proportionality test, but the complainants allege that general courts have distorted that test by misidentifying those fundamental rights. The Constitutional Court stated that the complainants undertook the difficult task of 'transferring' the tort of blasphemy (unregulated by criminal law) to the level of a civil tort. They did not claim to have been directly affected by the scenes described in the two plays, but alleged an interference with their religious feelings and those of other believing Christians.

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

The Constitutional Court did not find a violation of the complainant´s rights through the decisions of the lower courts. The lower courts applied a three-stage test for the admissibility of restrictions on freedom of expression (first, the lawfulness of the interference, second, its legitimate aim, third, the necessity of the interference in a democratic society). By applying the test, the lower courts concluded that there was in fact no violation of the complainants´ rights as they were not personally affected by the artistic expression.

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

“92. (…) obě hry sledovaly legitimní cíl, směřující k vyvolání veřejné diskuse o náboženském násilí a sexuálních incidentech uvnitř jedné z církví. Učinily tak prostředky sice zčásti blasfemickými, ve svém celku však nepotlačujícími základní sdělení.” 92. (…) both plays pursued a legitimate aim, aimed at provoking public discussion about religious violence and sexual incidents within one of the churches. They did so by means which, although partly blasphemous, did not, on the whole, suppress the underlying message.

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.