Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 13304/03   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2010,64184
EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 13304/03 (https://dejure.org/2010,64184)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02.02.2010 - 13304/03 (https://dejure.org/2010,64184)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02. Februar 2010 - 13304/03 (https://dejure.org/2010,64184)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,64184) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (12)

  • EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 20641/05

    EGITIM VE BILIM EMEKÇILERI SENDIKASI v. TURKEY

    Elle a également tenu compte des circonstances entourant le cas soumis à son examen, en particulier des difficultés liées à la lutte contre le terrorisme (Ä°brahim Aksoy c. Turquie, nos 28635/95, 30171/96 et 34535/97, § 60, 10 octobre 2000, Zana c. Turquie, 25 novembre 1997, § 55, Recueil 1997-VII, Incal c. Turquie, 9 juin 1998, § 58, Recueil 1998-IV, et Savgın c. Turquie, no 13304/03, § 44, 2 février 2010).
  • EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 16853/05

    FARUK TEMEL c. TURQUIE

    La Cour note par ailleurs que la déclaration lue dans son ensemble n'incite ni à l'usage de la violence ni à la résistance armée ni au soulèvement et - élément fondamental à prendre en considération (Savgın c. Turquie, no 13304/03, § 45, 2 février 2010, Sürek, précité, § 62, et Gerger c. Turquie [GC], no 24919/94, § 50, 8 juillet 1999) - qu'elle ne constitue pas non plus un discours de haine.
  • EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 46713/10

    BAKIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    As regards the necessity of the interference in a democratic society, the Court notes that it has already examined similar grievances in a number of cases and found violations of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (see, for example, Savgin v. Turkey, no. 13304/03, §§ 39-48, 2 February 2010; Gül and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870/02, §§ 32-45, 8 June 2010; Mentes v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 33347/04, §§ 39-54, 25 January 2011; Kiliç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, §§ 20-31, 29 November 2011; Faruk Temel, cited above, §§ 58-64; Öner and Türk, cited above, §§ 19-27; Gülcü, cited above, §§ 110-17; and Belge, cited above, §§ 24-38).
  • EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 28881/07

    ORAN c. TURQUIE

    Cette disposition doit s'appliquer « avec une certaine souplesse et sans formalisme excessif » ; il suffit que l'intéressé ait soulevé devant les autorités nationales « au moins en substance, et dans les conditions et délais prescrits par le droit interne », les griefs qu'il entend formuler par la suite à Strasbourg (Fressoz et Roire c. France [GC], no 29183/95, § 37, CEDH 1999-I, et Savgın c. Turquie, no 13304/03, § 31, 2 février 2010).
  • EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 50171/09

    BELGE v. TURKEY

    25067/94 and 25068/94, § 52, ECHR 1999-IV, in which the Court considered that an interview published in a monthly review in which the members of the PKK had been referred as "guerrilla" had not constituted incitement to violence and could not be construed as liable to incite to violence; Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 50, 8 July 1999, in which the Court held that the applicant's speech, which referred to the members of the PKK as "guerrilla", had constituted political criticism of the Turkish authorities and not an incitement to violence, armed resistance or an uprising; Bahçeci and Turan, cited above, § 30 and Savgin v. Turkey, no. 13304/03, § 45, 2 February 2010, in which the Court considered that text messages and slogans which referred to Abdullah Öcalan as the president had not incited to violence; Faruk Temel, cited above, § 62, in which the Court found that referring to Abdullah Öcalan as "esteemed" (sayin) during a speech did not incite to violence; and Öner and Türk v. Turkey, no. 51962/12, § 24, 31 March 2015, in which the Court held that the applicant's speech, in which he described Abdullah Öcalan as the "Kurdish leader" did not constitute incitement to violence).
  • EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 12606/11

    YAVUZ ET YAYLALI c. TURQUIE

    En l'espèce, la Cour note que la réaction des requérants à la suite des décès susmentionnés s'analysait en une critique des actes commis par les autorités officielles mais n'incitait ni à l'usage de la violence ni à la résistance armée ni au soulèvement (Savgın c. Turquie, no 13304/03, § 45, 2 février 2010 et Gerger c. Turquie [GC], no 24919/94, § 50, 8 juillet 1999) et ne constituait pas non plus un discours de haine.
  • EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 5782/10

    POLAT AND TALI v. TURKEY

    25067/94 and 25068/94, §§ 32-55, ECHR 1999-IV; Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, §§ 34-52, 8 July 1999; Koç and Tambas v. Turkey, no. 50934/99, §§ 25-40, 21 March 2006; Ulusoy v. Turkey, no. 52709/99, §§ 31-49, 31 July 2007; Savgin v. Turkey, no. 13304/03, §§ 39-48, 2 February 2010; Gül and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870/02, §§ 32-45, 8 June 2010; Mentes v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 33347/04, §§ 39-54, 25 January 2011; Kiliç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, §§ 20-31, 29 November 2011; Faruk Temel, cited above, §§ 58-64; Yavuz and Yaylali v. Turkey, no. 12606/11, §§ 42-55, 17 December 2013; Öner and Türk, cited above, §§ 19-27, 31 March 2015; and Belge v. Turkey, no. 50171/09, §§ 24-38, 6 December 2016).
  • EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 3752/11

    ARSLAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    As regards the necessity of the interference in a democratic society, the Court notes that it has already examined similar grievances in a number of cases and found violations of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (see, for example, Savgin v. Turkey, no. 13304/03, §§ 39-48, 2 February 2010; Gül and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870/02, §§ 32-45, 8 June 2010; Mentes v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 33347/04, §§ 39-54, 25 January 2011; Kiliç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, §§ 20-31, 29 November 2011; Faruk Temel, cited above, §§ 58-64; Yavuz and Yaylali v. Turkey, no. 12606/11, §§ 42-55, 17 December 2013; Öner and Türk, cited above, §§ 19-27, 31 March 2015; Gülcü v. Turkey, no. 17526/10, §§ 110-117, 19 January 2016; and Belge, cited above, §§ 24-38).
  • EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 70107/11

    SARITAS AND GEYIK v. TURKEY

    As regards the necessity of the interference in a democratic society, the Court notes that it has already examined similar grievances in a number of cases and found violations of Article 10 of the Convention (see, for example, Savgin v. Turkey, no. 13304/03, §§ 39-48, 2 February 2010; Gül and Others, cited above, §§ 32-45; Kiliç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, §§ 20-31, 29 November 2011; Faruk Temel, cited above, §§ 58-64; and Gülcü v. Turkey, no. 17526/10, §§ 113 and 117, 19 January 2016).
  • EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 57069/09

    ZENGIN AND ÇAKIR v. TURKEY

    As regards the necessity of the interference in a democratic society, the Court notes that it has already examined similar grievances in a number of cases and found violations of Article 10 of the Convention (see, for example, Savgin v. Turkey, no. 13304/03, §§ 39-48, 2 February 2010; Gül and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870/02, §§ 32-45, 8 June 2010; Kiliç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, §§ 20-31, 29 November 2011; Faruk Temel, cited above, §§ 58-64; and Gülcü, cited above, §§ 113 and 117).
  • EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 36643/09

    YIGIN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 3224/03

    TURAN BICER c. TURQUIE

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht