Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DMITRIYEVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 74613/01

  Rechtssache J. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 42168/06

  It has consistently held that in any system of law, including criminal law, however clearly drafted a legal provision may be, there will inevitably be a need for interpretation by the courts, whose judicial function is precisely to elucidate obscure points and dispel any doubts which may remain regarding the interpretation of legislation (see, for instance, Öztürk, cited above, § 55, and, mutatis mutandis, Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 101, ECHR 2007-III).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 42168/06

  It also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the persons concerned and foreseeable as to its effects, that is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the persons concerned - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail and to regulate their conduct (see, among many other authorities, Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 54, ECHR 1999-VI; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 41, ECHR 2007-IV; and Dilipak v. Turkey, no. 29680/05, § 55, 15 September 2015).
• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 36109/03

  LEROY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 42168/06

  It has also previously stressed the sensitivity of the fight against terrorism and the need for the authorities to stay alert to acts capable of fuelling additional violence (see, among other authorities, Öztürk, cited above, § 59; Erdogdu v. Turkey, no. 25723/94, § 50, ECHR 2000-VI, and Leroy v. France, no. 36109/03, § 36, 2 October 2008).

 
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23536/94

  Strafrechtliche Verfolgung auf Grund der Veröffentlichung eines Buches mit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 42168/06

  The Court recognises that in the area under consideration it may be difficult to frame laws with absolute precision and that a certain degree of flexibility may be called for to enable the Russian courts to assess whether a particular action can be considered as capable of stirring up hatred and enmity on the grounds listed in that Article (see Baskaya and Okçuoglu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 23536/94 and 24408/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-IV; Öztürk, cited above, § 55; and Karademirci and Others v. Turkey, nos. 37096/97 and 37101/97, § 39, ECHR 2005-I).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 22479/93

  ÖZTÜRK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 42168/06

  It also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the persons concerned and foreseeable as to its effects, that is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the persons concerned - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail and to regulate their conduct (see, among many other authorities, Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 54, ECHR 1999-VI; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 41, ECHR 2007-IV; and Dilipak v. Turkey, no. 29680/05, § 55, 15 September 2015).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94

  CEYLAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 42168/06

  Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" (see, among many other authorities, Sürek and Özdemir v. Turkey [GC], nos. 23927/94 and 24277/94, § 57, 8 July 1999; Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 32, ECHR 1999-IV; and, more recently, Perinçek, cited above, § 196; and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 29680/05

  DILIPAK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 42168/06

  It also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the persons concerned and foreseeable as to its effects, that is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the persons concerned - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail and to regulate their conduct (see, among many other authorities, Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 54, ECHR 1999-VI; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 41, ECHR 2007-IV; and Dilipak v. Turkey, no. 29680/05, § 55, 15 September 2015).
• EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 27520/07

  ALTUG TANER AKÇAM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 42168/06

  The interpretation and application of such enactments depend on practice (see, for instance, Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, § 64, ECHR 2004-I, and Altug Taner Akçam v. Turkey, no. 27520/07, § 87, 25 October 2011).
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 49085/07

  GÖRMÜS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 42168/06

  The Court further reiterates that the concepts of "national security" and "public safety" in Article 10 § 2, that permit interference with Convention rights, must be interpreted restrictively and should be brought into play only where it has been shown to be necessary to suppress the release of information for the purposes of protecting national security and public safety (see Stoll v. Switzerland [GC], no. 69698/01, § 54, ECHR 2007-V, and Görmüs and Others v. Turkey, no. 49085/07, § 37, 19 January 2016).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23927/94

  SÜREK AND ÖZDEMIR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 42168/06

  Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" (see, among many other authorities, Sürek and Özdemir v. Turkey [GC], nos. 23927/94 and 24277/94, § 57, 8 July 1999; Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 32, ECHR 1999-IV; and, more recently, Perinçek, cited above, § 196; and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 37096/97

  KARADEMIRCI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 32401/10

  TAGANROG LRO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court has found that situation unacceptable and stressed that all issues of law should be determined exclusively by judges (see Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, § 262, 17 July 2018, and Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017).
• EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 28470/12

  NIT S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Ainsi, ni le CCA ni les tribunaux n'ont analysé les propos en question pour déterminer s'ils visaient des personnes nommément (Bladet Tromsø et Stensaas, précité, §§ 61 et 71, Selistö c. Finlande, no 56767/00, § 64, 16 novembre 2004, et Dmitriyevskiy c. Russie, no 42168/06, § 105, 3 octobre 2017) et dans quelle mesure il s'agissait de simples jugements de valeur étayés par des éléments factuels.
• EGMR, 16.07.2019 - 12200/08

  ZHDANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that the concepts of "national security" and "public safety" must be applied with restraint and interpreted restrictively (see Stoll v. Switzerland [GC], no. 69698/01, § 54, ECHR 2007-V, and Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 86, 3 October 2017).

 
• EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 5869/17

  ERKIZIA ALMANDOZ c. ESPAGNE

  L'incitation à la haine n'implique pas nécessairement un appel explicite à un acte de violence ou à d'autres actes criminels (Féret c. Belgique, no 15615/07, § 73, 16 juillet 2009, Vejdeland et autres c. Suède, no 1813/07, § 55, 9 février 2012, Dmitriyevskiy c. Russie, no 42168/06, § 99, 3 octobre 2017, Ibragim Ibragimov et autres c. Russie, nos 1413/08 et 28621/11, § 94, 28 août 2018, et Atamanchuk c. Russie, no 4493/11, § 52, 11 février 2020).
• EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 1413/08

  Verstoß gegen Religions- und Meinungsfreiheit: russisches Verbot von islamischen …

  Attacks on persons committed by insulting, holding up to ridicule or slandering specific groups of the population can be sufficient for the authorities to favour combating xenophobic or otherwise discriminatory speech in the face of freedom of expression exercised in an irresponsible manner (see Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 99, 3 October 2017, with further references).
• EGMR, 18.11.2021 - 27801/12

  MARINONI c. ITALIE

  Selon sa jurisprudence établie, la recherche de la vérité historique fait partie intégrante de la liberté d'expression (ibidem, § 69) et un débat sur les causes d'actes d'une particulière gravité pouvant constituer des crimes de guerre ou des crimes contre l'humanité doit pouvoir se dérouler librement (Fatullayev c. Azerbaïdjan, no 40984/07, § 87, 22 avril 2010, et Dmitriyevskiy c. Russie, no 42168/06, § 106, 3 octobre 2017).
• EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 10692/09

  SAVVA TERENTYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court recognises that in the area under consideration it may be difficult to frame laws with absolute precision and that a certain degree of flexibility may be called for to enable the Russian courts to assess whether a particular action can be considered as capable of stirring up hatred and enmity on the grounds listed in that Article (see Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 80, 3 October 2017, and the authorities cited therein).
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 3642/10

  MUKHIN v. RUSSIA

  In this connection the Court refers to the principles established in cases concerning political ideas which challenge the existing order and the current principles and structures of a given State, with or without calls to violence (see Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 47, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III; Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 97, ECHR 2001-IX; The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 59491/00, § 79, 19 January 2006; Egitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikasi v. Turkey, no. 20641/05, §§ 70 and 74-75, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 96, 3 October 2017; and Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, §§ 85, 86 and 92, 9 May 2018).
• EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 64659/11

  MAKRADULI v.

  In a democratic system the actions or omissions of the government must be subject to close scrutiny, not only by the legislative and judicial authorities, but also by public opinion (see Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 96, 3 October 2017, and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 24738/19

  GASI AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  The Court also notes that it is not for it to rule on the constituent elements under domestic law of the offences of discrimination and a breach of the right to equality, or any other offence for that matter (see, mutatis mutandis, Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, § 121, 22 April 2010, and Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 102, 3 October 2017).
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 78618/13

  MOSEYEV v. RUSSIA