Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BELGE v. TURKEY

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BELGE v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (28)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 43807/07

  KILIÇ AND EREN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 50171/09

  In this connection, the Court notes that there is no indication in the case file that the gathering in front of the DEHAP building was not peaceful or that the people who had attended the demonstration engaged in acts of violence after listening to the applicant's speech (see Kiliç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, § 27, 29 November 2011).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 25067/94

  ERDOGDU ET INCE c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 50171/09

  The Court considers that the expressions "the leader of the Kurdish people" and "guerrilla" by themselves do not incite to violence (see Erdogdu and Ince v. Turkey [GC], nos. 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, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 50171/09

  However, it also refers to the quality of the law, which requires that legal norms should be accessible to the person concerned, their consequences foreseeable and that their compatibility with the rule of law be ensured (see, among others, Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 44, ECHR 2001-VIII; Ürper and Others v. Turkey, nos.

 
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24919/94

  GERGER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 50171/09

  The Court considers that the expressions "the leader of the Kurdish people" and "guerrilla" by themselves do not incite to violence (see Erdogdu and Ince v. Turkey [GC], nos. 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, 08.10.2013 - 28255/07

  CUMHURIYET VAKFI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 50171/09

  14526/07, 14747/07, 15022/07, 15737/07, 36137/07, 47245/07, 50371/07, 50372/07 and 54637/07, § 28, 20 October 2009; and Cumhuriyet Vakfi and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, § 50, 8 October 2013).
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 13304/03

  SAVGIN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 50171/09

  The Court considers that the expressions "the leader of the Kurdish people" and "guerrilla" by themselves do not incite to violence (see Erdogdu and Ince v. Turkey [GC], nos. 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, 31.03.2015 - 51962/12

  ÖNER AND TÜRK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 50171/09

  The Court considers that the expressions "the leader of the Kurdish people" and "guerrilla" by themselves do not incite to violence (see Erdogdu and Ince v. Turkey [GC], nos. 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, 09.12.2008 - 11976/03

  DEMIREL AND ATES (NO. 3) v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 50171/09

  In the Court's view, the applicant's speech as whole cannot be construed as encouraging violence, armed resistance or an uprising (see Demirel and Ates v. Turkey (no. 3), no. 11976/03, § 26, 9 December 2008).

• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 10613/10

  EKREM CAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  It concluded in respect of those cases that such slogans did not constitute an incitement to violence (see, among others, Belge v. Turkey, no. 50171/09, §§ 34-35, 6 December 2016 and the cases cited therein, and Belek and Velioglu v. Turkey, no. 44227/04, §§ 24-25, 6 October 2015), and it does not discern any reason in the present case to depart from those findings.
• EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 76224/12

  NEJDET ATALAY c. TURQUIE

  Procédant à une analyse de l'arrêt de condamnation de la cour d'assises, la Cour observe d'emblée que, dans cet arrêt, il n'était pas reproché au requérant d'avoir chanté des slogans, brandi des photos, des pancartes et des drapeaux, d'avoir participé avec certains manifestants à la commission d'autres actes lors de la manifestation litigieuse, d'avoir encouragé ou dirigé ces actes ou d'avoir été de quelque manière que ce soit à l'origine de ces actes (Bülent Kaya c. Turquie, no 52056/08, § 42, 22 octobre 2013, et Belge c. Turquie, no 50171/09, § 35, 6 décembre 2016).
• EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 5869/17

  ERKIZIA ALMANDOZ c. ESPAGNE

  Si l'éloge du terrorisme ne peut pas être considéré, dans les circonstances concrètes de l'affaire, comme une incitation à la violence ou un discours de haine, il ne constitue en principe pas une raison suffisante pour justifier une condamnation de celui qui l'a prononcé (voir, parmi d'autres, Yavuz et Yaylali, précité, § 52, et Belge c. Turquie, no 50171/09, §§ 33-36, 6 décembre 2016, et les références y citées ; comparer, pour un cas relativement ancien où la glorification d'un acte terroriste, en l'espèce l'attentat contre les Twin Towers de New York, avait été considérée en soi comme une raison pertinente et suffisante pour justifier une sanction imposée à l'auteur du message, alors même que ses intentions n'avaient pas été examinées par les juridictions internes, Leroy c. France, no 36109/03, §§ 41-46, 2 octobre 2008[3]).

 
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 33374/10

  MEHDI TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE (N° 2)

  Or elle rappelle que, dans de nombreuses affaires contre la Turquie, elle a considéré que l'expression « leader du peuple kurde'n'incite pas en elle-même à la violence (Belge c. Turquie, no 50171/09, § 37, 6 décembre 2016, et la jurisprudence qui y est citée).
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 10443/12

  GEYLANI AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE

  As to the banners present during the demonstration, the Court notes that these were displayed during a peaceful gathering, which limited their potential impact on "national security" and "public order" (see Belge v. Turkey, no. 50171/09, § 35, 6 December 2016).
• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 69270/12

  ÖZER c. TURQUIE (N° 3)

  Elle a en outre considéré dans son arrêt Belge c. Turquie (no 50171/09, 6 décembre 2016) que l'infraction de propagande en faveur d'une organisation terroriste, prévue par l'article 7 § 2 de la loi no 3713 tel qu'il était en vigueur de 2006 à 2013, ainsi que son interprétation par les juridictions nationales dans cette affaire ne semblaient pas entièrement claires (§ 29).
• EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 45975/12

  IMREK c. TURQUIE

  Procédant à une analyse de cet arrêt de condamnation, la Cour observe d'emblée qu'il n'était pas reproché au requérant d'avoir scandé les slogans litigieux, d'avoir brandi les photographies, les pancartes et les drapeaux incriminés, d'avoir participé avec certains manifestants à la commission d'autres actes lors de la manifestation litigieuse, d'avoir encouragé ou dirigé ces actes ou d'avoir été de quelque manière que ce soit à leur origine (Bülent Kaya c. Turquie, no 52056/08, § 42, 22 octobre 2013, et Belge c. Turquie, no 50171/09, § 35, 6 décembre 2016).
• EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 47455/10

  ABAY c. TURQUIE

  Procédant à une analyse de l'arrêt de condamnation rendu par la cour d'assises, la Cour observe d'emblée qu'il était reproché au requérant d'avoir, lors de la manifestation litigieuse, fait partie d'un groupe qui scandait des slogans (paragraphe 6 ci-dessus) et non pas d'avoir lui-même scandé des slogans ou participé avec certains manifestants à la commission d'autres actes susceptibles d'être considérés comme faisant l'apologie de crimes ou de criminels (Bülent Kaya, précité, § 42, et Belge c. Turquie, no 50171/09, § 35, 6 décembre 2016).
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 21196/12

  KALKAN c. TURQUIE

  Quant à la nécessité de l'ingérence, la Cour rappelle les principes découlant de sa jurisprudence en matière de liberté d'expression, lesquels sont résumés notamment dans les arrêts Bédat c. Suisse ([GC], no 56925/08, § 48, 29 mars 2016) et Belge c. Turquie (no 50171/09, §§ 31, 34 et 35, 6 décembre 2016).
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 22112/12

  AKTAS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Quant à la nécessité de l'ingérence, la Cour rappelle les principes découlant de sa jurisprudence en matière de liberté d'expression, lesquels sont résumés notamment dans les arrêts Bédat c. Suisse ([GC], no 56925/08, § 48, 29 mars 2016) et Belge c. Turquie (no 50171/09, §§ 31, 34 et 35, 6 décembre 2016).
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 62928/12

  ARAMAZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 39543/11

  YILDIZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 69604/12

  YAMAÇ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 35575/12

  ETE c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 32954/12

  KOK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 73954/11

  KILINÇ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 33513/11

  DAGTEKIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 53319/10

  UÇAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR - 43726/22 (anhängig)

  DEMIRER v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 05.05.2020 - 9735/12

  MEHDI TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 64138/11

  POLAT c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 5782/10

  POLAT AND TALI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 31605/12

  CIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 73487/12

  TAS ÇAKAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 69448/10

  DAGTEKIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 63681/12

  AKYÜZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 54698/13

  KALKAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 41839/09

  AKTAN c. TURQUIE