"The European Court said the conviction was correct" First of all, I think the argument that can be drawn from one Court decision is not very strong. Second a

"The European Court said the conviction was correct" First of all, I think the argument that can be drawn from one Court decision is not very strong. Second and possibly more important: this was a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (which is completely unrelated to the European Court of Justice and the EU) and the decision was not an appeal but the question was whether Austria had violated the European Convention on Human Rights which is a specific international treaty with specific Rights, mainly crafted in the late 1940s. It doesn't aim to be an all around Constitution for Europe but protects certain things for example in this case possibly free speech under Art. 10. The fact the the HR Court interpreted the Convention in a way that allowed Austrian Authorities to fine a certain statement does in no way imply that freedom of speech is not protected in the European Union or in the Council of Europe Member States. Instead it is a fundamental idea of the European Convention on HR that states get a certain margin of appreciation to make decisions such as these. In other cases (for example concerning whistleblowing or Lingens v Austria) the Court has upheld free speech.