Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 67200/12 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BODALEV v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article ...
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (20)
- EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 57818/09
LASHMANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 67200/12
Apparently, that flag was related to The Other Russia, a non-registered political party (see Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, § 123, 7 February 2017, and Karuyev v. Russia, no. 4161/13, § 2, 18 January 2022).For a summary of the relevant domestic law see Lashmankin and Others v. Russia (nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 216-312, 7 February 2017), and Navalnyy v. Russia ([GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, §§ 43-48, 15 November 2018).
The general principles for assessing whether an "interference" in respect of people organising and running a demonstration and in respect of other participants was "necessary in a democratic society" are well established in the case-law (see Kudrevicius and Others, cited above, §§ 142-60; Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, § 142, 7 February 2017; and Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, § 128, 15 November 2018).
- EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 4161/13
KARUYEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 67200/12
Apparently, that flag was related to The Other Russia, a non-registered political party (see Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, § 123, 7 February 2017, and Karuyev v. Russia, no. 4161/13, § 2, 18 January 2022).The Government have submitted no evidence of established domestic practice interpreting the obligation contained in section 6 § 3 (2) of the Act in that sense (compare Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 113-16, ECHR 2015; Gough v. the United Kingdom, no. 49327/11, § 155, 28 October 2014; Lucas v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39013/02, 18 March 2003; and Karuyev v. Russia, no. 4161/13, §§ 21-24, 18 January 2022).
- EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12
Mariya Alekhina u.a. ./. Russland - "Pussy Riot"-Urteil verletzt Meinungsfreiheit
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 67200/12
Noting the nature of their conduct, its expressive character as seen from an objective point of view and their purpose or intention (see Karuyev, cited above, § 19, and Murat Vural v. Turkey, no. 9540/07, § 54, 21 October 2014), the Court considers that this action concerned a form of political protest (compare Taranenko, cited above, §§ 69-71 and 77; Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 204-05, 17 July 2018; and Olga Kudrina v. Russia, no. 34313/06, § 49, 6 April 2021).
- EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 49327/11
Ohne Kleidung durch England: Nackt-Wanderer verliert
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 67200/12
The Government have submitted no evidence of established domestic practice interpreting the obligation contained in section 6 § 3 (2) of the Act in that sense (compare Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 113-16, ECHR 2015; Gough v. the United Kingdom, no. 49327/11, § 155, 28 October 2014; Lucas v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39013/02, 18 March 2003; and Karuyev v. Russia, no. 4161/13, §§ 21-24, 18 January 2022). - EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 76204/11
NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 67200/12
In particular, the Court notes that the public meetings on 4 and 6 December 2011 could, prima facie, be considered as a genuinely spontaneous reaction to the alleged violations committed during the election to the State Duma on 4 December 2011 (see also Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 7, 4 December 2014, and Davydov and Others v. Russia, no. 75947/11, §§ 6-9, 30 May 2017). - EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 25/02
BALÇIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 67200/12
Like other cases examined by the Court in respect of Russia and other countries, the present case concerns an "interference" in the context of public events which were notified in advance to the competent local authority but were not approved by it or events which were not notified (see Lashmankin and Others, § 211, and Navalnyy, §§ 14, 33 and 40, both cited above; and Obote v. Russia, no. 58954/09, § 9, 19 November 2019; see also Ziliberberg v. Moldova, no. 61821/00, § 13, 1 February 2005; Balçik and Others v. Turkey, no. 25/02, §§ 5 and 16, 29 November 2007; Tatár and Fáber v. Hungary, nos. - EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05
TARANENKO v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 67200/12
Protests can constitute expressions of opinion within the meaning of Article 10 (see Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, § 70, 15 May 2014, and Karastelev and Others v. Russia, no. 16435/10, § 88, 6 October 2020 and the cases cited therein). - EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 8029/07
GÜN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 67200/12
26005/08 and 26160/08, § 8, 12 June 2012; Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, § 14, 11 April 2013; Gün and Others v. Turkey, no. 8029/07, § 30, 18 June 2013; Shmushkovych v. Ukraine, no. 3276/10, § 12, 14 November 2013; and Egitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikasi and Others, cited above, §§ 100, 103 and 106). - EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9540/07
MURAT VURAL v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 67200/12
Noting the nature of their conduct, its expressive character as seen from an objective point of view and their purpose or intention (see Karuyev, cited above, § 19, and Murat Vural v. Turkey, no. 9540/07, § 54, 21 October 2014), the Court considers that this action concerned a form of political protest (compare Taranenko, cited above, §§ 69-71 and 77; Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 204-05, 17 July 2018; and Olga Kudrina v. Russia, no. 34313/06, § 49, 6 April 2021). - EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25501/07
NOVIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 67200/12
Admittedly, this reflected the legislator's perception of the increased danger posed by the specific offences, even where the reprehensible conduct consisted only in participating in a non-notified assembly, or/and because the existing legislative framework was initially inadequate (see Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, § 210, 26 April 2016). - EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 20372/11
VYERENTSOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10
KARASTELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 3642/10
MUKHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 31475/10
ANNENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 31.05.2022 - 23077/19
ARNAR HELGI LÁRUSSON v. ICELAND
- EGMR, 06.04.2021 - 34313/06
OLGA KUDRINA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 58954/09
OBOTE v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 3276/10
SHMUSHKOVYCH v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 10810/15
SMADIKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.03.2003 - 39013/02
LUCAS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 34241/16
KHORRSHR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 125-31 and 189-212, 26 April 2016, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 101-13, 11 May 2021 and Bodalev v. Russia, no. 67200/12, §§ 101-03, 6 September 2022, as to various interferences with the right to freedom of expression and the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for those interferences; Bodalev, cited above, §§ 75-95, Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 100-42, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, §§ 53-75, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, §§ 84-97, 3 October 2013, as to disproportionate measures taken against organisers or participants of public assemblies.