Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IMRET v. TURKEY (No. 2)

  Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  IMRET c. TURQUIE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1 MRK
  [FRA]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10

  Menschenrechtsgerichtshof verurteilt Türkei wegen Online-Zensur

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 57316/10

  In addition, the legal norms should be compatible with the rule of law (see, for example, Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 44, ECHR 2001-VIII; Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 57, ECHR 2012; and Cumhuriyet Vakfi and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, § 50, 8 October 2013).

  In the light of the aforementioned considerations, the Court concludes that Article 220 § 7 of the Criminal Code was not "foreseeable" in its application since it did not afford the applicant the legal protection against arbitrary interference with his right under Article 11 of the Convention (see Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 67, ECHR 2012, and Isikirik, cited above, § 70).

• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 57316/10

  Having regard to the facts of the case and its finding of a violation of Article 11 of the Convention, the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility or the merits of the applicant's complaints under Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 57316/10

  Accordingly, many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague and whose interpretation and application are questions of practice (see The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 49, Series A no. 30; De Tommaso, cited above, § 107; Medzlis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others, cited above, § 70; and Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy, cited above, § 143).

 
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 57316/10

  30562/04 and 30566/04, § 95, ECHR 2008; Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 82, 14 September 2010; and Güler and Ugur v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  DE TOMMASO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 57316/10

  The Court reiterates its settled case-law, according to which the expressions "in accordance with the law" and "prescribed by law" not only require that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law, but also refer to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the persons concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 106, 23 February 2017 and the cases cited therein; Medzlis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no. 17224/11, § 68, 27 June 2017; and Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, § 142, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 57316/10

  Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion and the manner of its exercise (see Hasan and Chaush, cited above, § 84; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 38224/03

  Sanoma Uitgevers BV ./. Niederlande

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 57316/10

  30562/04 and 30566/04, § 95, ECHR 2008; Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 82, 14 September 2010; and Güler and Ugur v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 57316/10

  In addition, the legal norms should be compatible with the rule of law (see, for example, Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 44, ECHR 2001-VIII; Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 57, ECHR 2012; and Cumhuriyet Vakfi and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, § 50, 8 October 2013).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 57316/10

  30562/04 and 30566/04, § 95, ECHR 2008; Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 82, 14 September 2010; and Güler and Ugur v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 10877/04

  SERGEY KUZNETSOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 57316/10

  Thus, the Court has found in a number of cases that penalties imposed for taking part in a rally amounted to an interference with the right to freedom of assembly (see, for example, Ezelin, cited above, § 41; Osmani and Others v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (dec.), no. 50841/99, ECHR 2001-X; Mkrtchyan v. Armenia, no. 6562/03, § 37, 11 January 2007; Galstyan, cited above, § 101; Ashughyan v. Armenia, no. 33268/03, § 77, 17 July 2008; Sergey Kuznetsov v. Russia, no. 10877/04, § 36, 23 October 2008; Uzunget and Others v. Turkey, no. 21831/03, § 43, 13 October 2009; and Yilmaz Yildiz and Others v. Turkey, no. 4524/06, § 34, 14 October 2014).
• EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 41226/09

  Türkei verurteilt: Nicht jeder ist ein Terrorist
• EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 4524/06

  YILMAZ YILDIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 28255/07

  CUMHURIYET VAKFI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 33268/03

  ASHUGHYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 31706/10

  GÜLER ET UGUR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 21831/03

  UZUNGET AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

• EGMR, 26.09.2019 - 56317/11

  MAJIDLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Having regard to the facts of the cases and its finding of a violation of Article 11 of the Convention, the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility or the merits of the respective applicants" complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and Imret v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 57316/10, § 61, 10 July 2018).