Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DÖNER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (20)

• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 29680/05

  DILIPAK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 29994/02

  The Court notes in this connection that State action that has been found to amount to an interference with the right to freedom of expression encompasses a wide variety of measures - mainly in the form of a "formality, condition, restriction or penalty" (see, mutatis mutandis, Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, § 43, ECHR 1999-VII) - and may include, depending on the circumstances, criminal proceedings not culminating in a criminal conviction (see, for instance, Altug Taner Akçam v. Turkey, no. 27520/07, §§ 65-83, 25 October 2011, and Dilipak v. Turkey, no. 29680/05, §§ 40-51, 15 September 2015 and the cases cited therein).

  Such a law, coupled with such a practice, is liable to have a severely dissuasive effect on the members of the Kurdish minority in expressing their specific concerns, opinions and demands (compare Dilipak v. Turkey, no. 29680/05, §§ 46, 47 and 50, 15 September 2015, and Altug Taner Akçam v. Turkey, no. 27520/07, §§ 70-75, 25 October 2011).

• EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 27520/07

  ALTUG TANER AKÇAM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 29994/02

  The Court notes in this connection that State action that has been found to amount to an interference with the right to freedom of expression encompasses a wide variety of measures - mainly in the form of a "formality, condition, restriction or penalty" (see, mutatis mutandis, Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, § 43, ECHR 1999-VII) - and may include, depending on the circumstances, criminal proceedings not culminating in a criminal conviction (see, for instance, Altug Taner Akçam v. Turkey, no. 27520/07, §§ 65-83, 25 October 2011, and Dilipak v. Turkey, no. 29680/05, §§ 40-51, 15 September 2015 and the cases cited therein).

  Such a law, coupled with such a practice, is liable to have a severely dissuasive effect on the members of the Kurdish minority in expressing their specific concerns, opinions and demands (compare Dilipak v. Turkey, no. 29680/05, §§ 46, 47 and 50, 15 September 2015, and Altug Taner Akçam v. Turkey, no. 27520/07, §§ 70-75, 25 October 2011).

• EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29225/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 29994/02

  The Court stresses in this regard that in a democratic society based on the rule of law, political ideas which challenge the existing order and whose realisation is advocated by peaceful means must be afforded a proper opportunity of expression (see, mutatis mutandis, Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 97, ECHR 2001-IX), which, on the instant facts, the prosecution authorities ignored.

 
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 29994/02

  Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24, and Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, § 158, 23 June 2016 and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 29994/02

  However, it also refers to the quality of the law in question, which requires that legal rules should be accessible to the person concerned, their consequences foreseeable and their compatibility with the rule of law ensured (see, for further details, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 141, ECHR 2012; Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 121, ECHR 2015; Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, § 131, ECHR 2015 (extracts); Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 44, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Dink v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 11146/11

  HORVÁTH AND KISS v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 29994/02

  Moreover, I would not exclude that in a case relating to the treatment of a minority, the discrimination issue is in fact the heart of the matter (see, as regards the treatment of Roma in the area of education, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, ECHR 2007-IV; Orsus and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03, ECHR 2010; and Horváth and Kiss v. Hungary, no. 11146/11, 29 January 2013).
• EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 28255/07

  CUMHURIYET VAKFI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 29994/02

  In doing so, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities, basing themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts, applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention (see Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 91, ECHR 2004-XI, and Cumhuriyet Vakfi and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, § 59, 8 October 2013).
• EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29221/95

  STANKOV AND THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 29994/02

  The Court stresses in this regard that in a democratic society based on the rule of law, political ideas which challenge the existing order and whose realisation is advocated by peaceful means must be afforded a proper opportunity of expression (see, mutatis mutandis, Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 97, ECHR 2001-IX), which, on the instant facts, the prosecution authorities ignored.
• EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09

  CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 29994/02

  However, it also refers to the quality of the law in question, which requires that legal rules should be accessible to the person concerned, their consequences foreseeable and their compatibility with the rule of law ensured (see, for further details, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 141, ECHR 2012; Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 121, ECHR 2015; Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, § 131, ECHR 2015 (extracts); Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 44, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Dink v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 2668/07

  DINK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 29994/02

  2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, § 114, 14 September 2010).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 36009/08

  M.B. AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 28396/95

  Nichtberufung eines liechtensteiner Richters in das Amt des Gerichtspräsidenten …
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …
• EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92

  DIKME c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 6759/11

  GAL v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 34529/10

  GUTSANOVI c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 26289/12

  MAGEE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 71667/11

  SAHIN DUMAN ET AUTRES c. T?RKIYE

  Sur le bien-fondé du grief 15. La Cour considère que le placement et le maintien en détention des requérants ainsi que les condamnations pénales qui leur ont été infligées à raison de leur participation à une manifestation s'analysent en une ingérence dans l'exercice par eux de leur droit à la liberté de réunion (voir Gülcü c. Turquie, no 17526/10, §§ 98-102, 19 janvier 2016, Döner et autres c. Turquie, no 29994/02, § 89, 7 mars 2017, Bakir et autres c. Turquie, no 46713/10, § 50, 10 juillet 2018).
• EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 39650/18

  ZUREK v. POLAND

  Having regard to the overall context of the present case, the Court has serious doubts as to whether the interference complained of pursued any of the legitimate aims provided for in Article 10 § 2. However, it is not required to reach a final conclusion on this question since, in view of the reasons stated below (see paragraphs 220-228 below), the impugned interference cannot in any event be considered to have been "necessary in a democratic society" for the purposes of this provision (see Döner and Others v. Turkey, no. 29994/02, § 95, 7 March 2017).

  "Having regard to the overall context of the present case, the Court has serious doubts as to whether the interference complained of pursued any of the legitimate aims provided for in Article 10 § 2. However, it is not required to reach a final conclusion on this question since, in view of the reasons stated below (see paragraphs 220-228 below), the impugned interference cannot in any event be considered to have been "necessary in a democratic society" for the purposes of this provision (see Döner and Others v. Turkey, no. 29994/02, § 95, 7 March 2017).".

• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 32401/10

  TAGANROG LRO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that measures capable of having a chilling effect on the exercise of a Convention right may confer on the affected individuals the status of a "victim" of an alleged violation even in the absence of a final conviction and that the existence of a deprivation of liberty would be indicative of interference with that right (see Dilipak v. Turkey, no. 29680/05, § 50, 15 September 2015, and Döner and Others v. Turkey, no. 29994/02, § 88, 7 March 2017).

 
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 36944/07

  KABOGLU ET ORAN c. TURQUIE (N° 2)

  Elle rappelle avoir ainsi estimé dans l'affaire Döner et autres c. Turquie (no 29994/02, §§ 85-88, 7 mars 2017) que les procédures pénales engagées contre les requérants, qui avaient duré environ un an et quatre mois et à l'issue desquelles les intéressés avaient été acquittés mais qui avaient été accompagnées de mesures telles que des perquisitions, des gardes à vue et des placements en détention, avaient constitué une ingérence dans le droit de ces derniers à la liberté d'expression.
• EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 52497/08

  ALI GÜRBÜZ c. TURQUIE

  Elle rappelle avoir ainsi estimé dans l'affaire Döner et autres c. Turquie (no 29994/02, §§ 85-88, 7 mars 2017) que les procédures pénales engagées contre les requérants, qui avaient duré environ un an et quatre mois et à l'issue desquelles les intéressés avaient été acquittés mais qui avaient été accompagnées de mesures telles que des perquisitions, des gardes à vue et des placements en détention, avaient constitué une ingérence dans le droit de ces derniers à la liberté d'expression.
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 56425/18

  RIMSEVICS v. LATVIA

  The right to "take proceedings" thus arises at that stage, with the consequence that the denial of the right to institute such proceedings - subject to reasonable practical considerations - will raise an issue under Article 5 § 4 (see Döner and Others v. Turkey, no. 29994/02, § 68, 7 March 2017).
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 2059/16

  HASANOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Only when the two above-mentioned conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude an examination of an application (see Arat v. Turkey, no. 10309/03, § 46, 10 November 2009, and Döner and Others v. Turkey, no. 29994/02, § 89, 7 March 2017).
• EGMR - 43726/22 (anhängig)

  DEMIRER v. TÜRKIYE

  Was there an interference with the applicant's freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, due to his placement in police custody and the criminal proceedings against him (Dilipak v. Turkey, no. 29680/05, §§ 44-47; 15 September 2015; Döner and others v. Turkey, 29994/02, §§ 85-88, 7 March 2017; Ali Gürbüz v. Turkey, no. 52497/08 and 6 others, §§ 59-69, 12 March 2019; Kaboglu and Oran v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 36944/07, §§ 105-116, 20 October 2020) ?.
• EGMR - 31946/21 (anhängig)

  FERREIRA DA SILVA MACEDO v. PORTUGAL

  Was the applicant brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, §§ 47-49, ECHR 1999-III; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 47, ECHR 2006-X; Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, §§ 153-55 and 157-58, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and Döner and Others v. Turkey, no. 29994/02, §§ 53-54, 7 March 2017)?.
• EGMR, 26.03.2024 - 36889/20

  SOLMAZ c. T?RKIYE

  Elle rappelle avoir ainsi estimé dans l'affaire Döner et autres c. Turquie (no 29994/02, §§ 85-88, 7 mars 2017) que les procédures pénales engagées contre les requérants, qui avaient duré environ un an et quatre mois et à l'issue desquelles les intéressés avaient été acquittés mais qui avaient été accompagnées de mesures telles que des perquisitions, des gardes à vue et des placements en détention, avaient constitué une ingérence dans le droit de ces derniers à la liberté d'expression.