Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 79584/12 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,2000) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SLAVA JURISIC v. CROATIA
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
JURISIC v. CROATIA
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 79584/12
- EGMR, 17.10.2018 - 79584/12
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 25067/94
ERDOGDU ET INCE c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 79584/12
Such a sanction, by its very nature, will inevitably have a chilling effect, and the fact that a suspended sentence was imposed which the applicant did not have to serve does not alter that conclusion, since her conviction was maintained (see, mutatis mutandis, CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re, cited above, § 116, and Erdogdu and Ince v. Turkey [GC], nos. 25067/94 and 25068/94, § 53, ECHR 1999-IV; contrast also with cases in which neither a matter of political debate nor freedom of the press was at stake, such as Lesník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, § 63, ECHR 2003-IV, and Vejdeland v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, §§ 58 and 59, 9 February 2012). - EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95
DALBAN v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 79584/12
Even though it was a suspended sentence, the applicant nevertheless faced the threat of imprisonment (compare Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 52, ECHR 1999-VI; and contrast Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 81, ECHR 2016). - EGMR, 09.02.2012 - 1813/07
Verurteilung wegen homophober Hate-Speech keine Verletzung der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 79584/12
Such a sanction, by its very nature, will inevitably have a chilling effect, and the fact that a suspended sentence was imposed which the applicant did not have to serve does not alter that conclusion, since her conviction was maintained (see, mutatis mutandis, CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re, cited above, § 116, and Erdogdu and Ince v. Turkey [GC], nos. 25067/94 and 25068/94, § 53, ECHR 1999-IV; contrast also with cases in which neither a matter of political debate nor freedom of the press was at stake, such as Lesník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, § 63, ECHR 2003-IV, and Vejdeland v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, §§ 58 and 59, 9 February 2012). - EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95
SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 79584/12
For example, such a sentence might be compatible in relation to hate speech or incitement to or glorification of violence, neither of which was a feature of this case (see Feridun Yazar v. Turkey, no. 42713/98, § 27, 23 September 2004; and contrast Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-IV).