Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
AHMET YILDIRIM c. TURQUIE
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
Violation de l'article 10 - Liberté d'expression-Générale (Article 10-1 - Liberté d'expression Liberté de communiquer des informations Liberté de recevoir des informations) Préjudice moral - réparation (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
AHMET YILDIRIM v. TURKEY
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression Freedom to impart information Freedom to receive information) Non-pecuniary damage - award ...
Kurzfassungen/Presse (3)
- urheberrecht.org (Kurzinformation)
Urteil gegen Türkei wegen Online-Zensur
- lehofer.at (Kurzinformation)
Beschränkung des Internetzugangs als Verletzung des Art 10 EMRK
- heise.de (Pressebericht, 19.12.2012)
Menschenrechtsgerichtshof verurteilt Türkei wegen Online-Zensur
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[FRE]
Wird zitiert von ... (57) Neu Zitiert selbst (12)
- EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88
OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10
Likewise, the Court has consistently emphasised that Article 10 guarantees not only the right to impart information but also the right of the public to receive it (see Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59 (b), Series A no. 216, and Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 53, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I).On the legal framework, see RTBF v. Belgium, no. 50084/06, § 115, ECHR 2011: "if prior restraints are required in the media sphere, they must form part of a legal framework ensuring both tight control over the scope of any bans and effective judicial review to prevent potential abuses." And on the judicial exercise of restraint, see Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 60, Series A no. 216: "... the dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court.
- EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 3002/03
TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1 et N° 2)
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10
As regards the importance of Internet sites in the exercise of freedom of expression, the Court reiterates that, in Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2) (nos. 3002/03 and 23676/03, § 27, ECHR 2009), it found as follows:.3002/03 and 23676/03, § 27, ECHR 2009.
- EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98
EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10
However, a legal framework is required, ensuring both tight control over the scope of bans and effective judicial review to prevent any abuse of power (see Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 58, ECHR 2001-VIII, and, mutatis mutandis, Editorial Board of Pravoye Delo and Shtekel v. Ukraine, no. 33014/05, § 55, ECHR 2011).This is especially so as far as the press is concerned, for news is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication, even for a short period, may well deprive it of all its value and interest." This was confirmed by Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 42, ECHR 2004-IV; Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 56, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Obukhova v. Russia, no. 34736/03, § 22, 8 January 2009.
- EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00
ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10
This is especially so as far as the press is concerned, for news is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication, even for a short period, may well deprive it of all its value and interest." This was confirmed by Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 42, ECHR 2004-IV; Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 56, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Obukhova v. Russia, no. 34736/03, § 22, 8 January 2009. - EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 40153/98
ÇETIN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10
It makes no distinction according to the nature of the aim pursued or the role played by natural or legal persons in the exercise of that freedom (see Çetin and Others v. Turkey, nos. 40153/98 and 40160/98, § 57, ECHR 2003-III). - EGMR, 22.05.1990 - 12726/87
AUTRONIC AG v. SWITZERLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10
It applies not only to the content of information but also to the means of dissemination, since any restriction imposed on the latter necessarily interferes with the right to receive and impart information (see, mutatis mutandis, Autronic AG v. Switzerland, 22 May 1990, § 47, Series A no. 178). - EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74
SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10
This is borne out not only by the words "conditions", "restrictions", "preventing" and "prevention" which appear in that provision, but also by the Court's judgment in The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (26 April 1979, Series A no. 30) and in markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany (20 November 1989, Series A no. 165). - EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83
MARKT INTERN VERLAG GMBH ET KLAUS BEERMANN c. ALLEMAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10
This is borne out not only by the words "conditions", "restrictions", "preventing" and "prevention" which appear in that provision, but also by the Court's judgment in The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (26 April 1979, Series A no. 30) and in markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany (20 November 1989, Series A no. 165). - EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98
MAESTRI c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10
Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion and the manner of its exercise (see, among many other authorities, The Sunday Times, cited above, § 49, and Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I). - EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 2668/07
DINK c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10
The Court reiterates at the outset that the expression "prescribed by law", within the meaning of Article 10 § 2, requires firstly that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; however, it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences, and that it should be compatible with the rule of law (see, among many other authorities, Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, § 114, 14 September 2010). - EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 27520/07
ALTUG TANER AKÇAM v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 19.12.1994 - 15153/89
VEREINIGUNG DEMOKRATISCHER SOLDATEN ÖSTERREICHS AND GUBI v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 61496/08
Firma durfte Mitarbeiter wegen privater Nachrichten kündigen
2 Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, §§ 110 and 118, 16 June 2015, following Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 48, ECHR 2012, and Times Newspapers Ltd (nos. 1 and 2) v. the United Kingdom, nos.12 Amann, cited above, § 65, and Copland, cited above, § 43. In a broader context, see also my separate opinion joined to Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, 18 December 2012.13 The pursuance of the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals is not in the purview of the employer, and therefore do not justify the interference with the Convention right.
- EuGH, 26.04.2022 - C-401/19
Die Verpflichtung der Diensteanbieter für das Teilen von Online-Inhalten, die …
Was insbesondere eine Einschränkung der Ausübung des Rechts auf freie Meinungsäußerung und Informationsfreiheit wie die in der vorliegenden Rechtssache in Rede stehende angeht, ergibt sich aus der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte, dass Art. 10 EMRK zwar nicht jede vorherige Einschränkung eines Verbreitungsmittels als solche verbietet, dass solche Einschränkungen aber so große Gefahren für die Wahrung dieses Grundrechts darstellen, dass sie in einem besonders strikten rechtlichen Rahmen erfolgen müssen (Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte, 18. Dezember 2012, Ahmet Yildirim/Türkei, CE:ECHR:2012:1218JUD000311110, §§ 47 und 64 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 16.07.2020 - C-682/18
Nach Auffassung von Generalanwalt Saugmandsgaard Øe haften Betreiber von …
223 Vgl. u. a. Urteil GS Media, Rn. 45, und EGMR, 18. Dezember 2012, Ahmet Yildirim/Türkei, CE:ECHR:2012:1218JUD000311110, § 54, und EGMR, 1. Dezember 2015, Cengiz u. a./Türkei, CE:ECHR:2015:1201JUD004822610, § 49. Vgl. im selben Sinne auch EGMR, 10. März 2009, Times Newspapers Ltd/Vereinigtes Königreich (Nrn. 1 und 2), CE:ECHR:2009:0310JUD000300203, § 27, und EGMR, 10. Januar 2013, Ashby Donald u. a./Frankreich, CE:ECHR:2013:0110JUD003676908, § 34.
- EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 48226/10
Türkei wegen YouTube-Blockade verurteilt
Pour un exposé du droit et de la pratique internes et internationaux en vigueur à l'époque des faits, la Cour renvoie à son arrêt Ahmet Yildirim c. Turquie (no 3111/10, §§ 15-37, CEDH 2012).Disant se référer à l'arrêt Ahmet Yildirim c. Turquie (no 3111/10, CEDH 2012) ainsi qu'à deux arrêts de la Cour constitutionnelle (paragraphes 25-26 ci-dessus), ils affirment également que la loi no 5651 n'autorisait pas le blocage général de l'accès à un site internet.
Par ailleurs, dans l'affaire Ahmet Yildirim c. Turquie (arrêt no 3111/10, CEDH 2012), le tribunal avait ordonné de bloquer totalement l'accès à Google Sites à la suite d'une demande de la PTI.
- EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 22947/13
News-Portal: Keine Haftung für Nutzerkommentare
Moreover, the Court has previously held that in the light of its accessibility and its capacity to store and communicate vast amounts of information, the Internet plays an important role in enhancing the public's access to news and facilitating the dissemination of information in general (see Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 48, ECHR 2012; Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), nos. - EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 21575/08
Internetsperre für Häftling: Litauen verurteilt
In this connection, the Court reiterates that in the light of its accessibility and its capacity to store and communicate vast amounts of information, the Internet plays an important role in enhancing the public's access to news and facilitating the dissemination of information in general (see Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 133, ECHR 2015; Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 48, ECHR 2012; and Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), nos. - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 26.11.2013 - C-314/12
Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Pedro Cruz Villalón kann einem Internetprovider …
48- Vgl. zu dem möglichen Kollateralschaden einer Sperrmaßnahme EGMR, Urteil Yildirim gegen Türkei vom 18. Dezember 2012, Beschwerde Nr. 3111/10.62- EGMR, Urteil Yildirim gegen Türkei vom 18. Dezember 2012, Beschwerde Nr. 3111/10, § 31.
63- EGMR, Urteil Yildirim gegen Türkei vom 18. Dezember 2012, Beschwerde Nr. 3111/10, § 48; EGMR, Urteil Times Newspapers Ltd. gegen das Vereinigte Königreich vom 10. März 2009, Beschwerde Nr. 3002/03 und 23676/03, § 27.
- EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 17429/10
KALDA v. ESTONIA
44. In this connection, the Court reiterates that in the light of its accessibility and its capacity to store and communicate vast amounts of information, the Internet plays an important role in enhancing the public's access to news and facilitating the dissemination of information in general (see Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 133, ECHR 2015; Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 48, ECHR 2012; and Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), nos.In my view, refusal to grant access to the Internet, thus rendering access to specific information either impossible or more difficult, will in general amount to an interference with the right to receive information (see Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, §§ 47-56, ECHR 2012; Akdeniz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 20877/10, §§ 18-29, 11 March 2014; and Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, nos.
- EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08
CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
Eu égard toutefois aux faits de l'espèce, aux thèses des parties et aux conclusions formulées sous l'angle des articles 2 et 13 de la Convention, la Cour estime qu'elle a examiné les principales questions juridiques soulevées par la présente requête et qu'il n'y a pas lieu de statuer séparément sur les autres griefs (voir, parmi d'autres, Kamil Uzun c. Turquie, no 37410/97, § 64, 10 mai 2007, The Arges College of Legal Advisers, précité, § 47, Women On Waves et autres c. Portugal, no 31276/05, § 47, 3 février 2009, Velcea et Mazare c. Roumanie, no 64301/01, § 138, 1er décembre 2009, Villa c. Italie, no 19675/06, § 55, 20 avril 2010, Ahmet Yıldırım c. Turquie, no 3111/10, § 72, CEDH 2012, et Mehmet Hatip Dicle c. Turquie, no 9858/04, § 41, 15 octobre 2013 ; voir aussi Varnava et autres, précité, §§ 210-211). - EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 11257/16
Regeln für Hyperlinks konkretisiert
As regards the importance of Internet sites in the exercise of freedom of expression the Court has found that in the light of its accessibility and its capacity to store and communicate vast amounts of information, the Internet has played an important role in enhancing the public's access to news and facilitating the dissemination of information in general (see Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 48, ECHR 2012). - EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 41226/09
Türkei verurteilt: Nicht jeder ist ein Terrorist
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 15.07.2021 - C-401/19
Generalanwalt Saugmandsgaard Øe: Art. 17 der Richtlinie 2019/790 über das …
- EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 10795/14
VLADIMIR KHARITONOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 57316/10
IMRET v. TURKEY (No. 2)
- EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 46713/10
BAKIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 931/13
Keine Verletzung des Rechts auf Meinungsäußerung durch Verbot der …
- EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 6987/07
GUSEVA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 32401/10
TAGANROG LRO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 20.01.2020 - 201/17
MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 17676/09
CICAD c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 11.03.2014 - 20877/10
AKDENIZ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 22.11.2018 - 29543/15
KONSTANTINOPOULOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 17.03.2022 - 24827/14
FU QUAN, S.R.O. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 41216/13
PETUKHOV v. UKRAINE (No. 2)
- EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 44227/04
BELEK ET VELIOGLU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02
KYRIACOU TSIAKKOURMAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 10271/12
KILIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 4982/07
KAOS GL c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 04.05.2021 - 41139/15
AKDENIZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 12468/15
OOO FLAVUS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 48310/16
KABLIS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 31955/11
JEZIOR c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 26.03.2020 - 44229/11
PENDOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 16695/19
KOZAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 38767/09
GÜLER ET ZARAKOLU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 68550/17
RAMAZAN DEMIR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 61919/16
ENGELS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 20159/15
BULGAKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 13716/12
KAPMAZ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 55760/11
KAPMAZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05
AYDIN ÇETINKAYA v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 23.02.2023 - 22323/16
RUSTAMZADE v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)
- EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 57279/11
BAT v. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 43351/12
OOO INFORMATSIONNOYE AGENTSTVO TAMBOV-INFORM v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 44151/12
TEMPEL v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 59040/08
OKTAR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 43217/04
ASLAN ET SEZEN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 15066/05
ASLAN ET SEZEN c. TURQUIE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 07.09.2021 - 45016/18
ÇAKMAK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 37326/13
UNIFAUN THEATRE PRODUCTIONS LIMITED AND OTHERS v. MALTA
- EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 34364/08
DILEK ASLAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR - 13232/18 (anhängig)
TELEGRAM MESSENGER LLP AND TELEGRAM MESSENGER INC. v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 36589/17 (anhängig)
AZADLIG.INFO AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 32738/11
KILICI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 65324/09
IALAMOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 51099/10
GRECU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 20564/10
IRMAK v. TURKEY