Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 53047/99   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,50731
EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 53047/99 (https://dejure.org/2007,50731)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02.10.2007 - 53047/99 (https://dejure.org/2007,50731)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02. Oktober 2007 - 53047/99 (https://dejure.org/2007,50731)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,50731) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

  • EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

    FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 53047/99
    In the light of the above, the Court concludes that the applicant's complaint under Article 10 of the Convention was thus brought, at least in substance, to the attention of the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, §§ 36-39, ECHR 1999-I and Kar and Others v. Turkey, no. 58756/00, §§ 35-38, 3 May 2007).
  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94

    CEYLAN c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 53047/99
    The Court has examined a number of cases raising similar issues to those in the present case and found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see, in particular, the following judgments: Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 38, ECHR 1999-IV; Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 74, ECHR 1999-VI; Ä°brahim Aksoy v. Turkey, nos. 28635/95, 30171/96 and 34535/97, §§ 80, 10 October 2000 and Kızılyaprak v. Turkey, no. 27528/95, § 43, 2 October 2003).
  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24762/94

    SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 4)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 53047/99
    Against this background, the Court considers that the reasons given by the State Security Court for convicting and sentencing the applicant, cannot be considered sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression (see, mutatis mutandis, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 4) [GC], no. 24762/94, § 58, 8 July 1999 and Üstün v. Turkey, no. 37685/02, §§ 34-35, 10 May 2007).
     
  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24919/94

    GERGER v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 53047/99
    In the Court's view, this is the essential factor (contrast Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-IV, and Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 50, 8 July 1999) in the assessment of the necessity of the measure.
  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

    SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 53047/99
    In the Court's view, this is the essential factor (contrast Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-IV, and Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 50, 8 July 1999) in the assessment of the necessity of the measure.
  • EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 22479/93

    ÖZTÜRK v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 53047/99
    The Court has examined a number of cases raising similar issues to those in the present case and found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see, in particular, the following judgments: Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 38, ECHR 1999-IV; Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 74, ECHR 1999-VI; Ä°brahim Aksoy v. Turkey, nos. 28635/95, 30171/96 and 34535/97, §§ 80, 10 October 2000 and Kızılyaprak v. Turkey, no. 27528/95, § 43, 2 October 2003).
  • EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 25723/94

    ERDOGDU c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 53047/99
    As regards the second part of the Government's preliminary objections, the Court recalls that the rule of exhaustion set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention must be applied "with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism"; it is sufficient that the complaints intended to be made subsequently in Strasbourg should have been raised, "at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law", before the national authorities (see ErdoÄ?du v. Turkey, no. 25723/94, § 38, ECHR 2000-VI).
  • EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 28635/95

    IBRAHIM AKSOY c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 53047/99
    The Court has examined a number of cases raising similar issues to those in the present case and found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see, in particular, the following judgments: Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 38, ECHR 1999-IV; Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 74, ECHR 1999-VI; Ä°brahim Aksoy v. Turkey, nos. 28635/95, 30171/96 and 34535/97, §§ 80, 10 October 2000 and Kızılyaprak v. Turkey, no. 27528/95, § 43, 2 October 2003).
  • EGMR, 02.10.2003 - 27528/95

    KIZILYAPRAK c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 53047/99
    The Court has examined a number of cases raising similar issues to those in the present case and found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see, in particular, the following judgments: Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 38, ECHR 1999-IV; Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 74, ECHR 1999-VI; Ä°brahim Aksoy v. Turkey, nos. 28635/95, 30171/96 and 34535/97, §§ 80, 10 October 2000 and Kızılyaprak v. Turkey, no. 27528/95, § 43, 2 October 2003).
  • EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 58756/00

    KAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 53047/99
    In the light of the above, the Court concludes that the applicant's complaint under Article 10 of the Convention was thus brought, at least in substance, to the attention of the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, §§ 36-39, ECHR 1999-I and Kar and Others v. Turkey, no. 58756/00, §§ 35-38, 3 May 2007).
  • EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 37685/02

    ÜSTÜN v. TURKEY

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht