Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GÜL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 4870/02
• EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02
• EGMR - 4870/02

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 57258/00

  YARAR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02

  Furthermore, the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are also factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of the interference (see, Yarar v. Turkey, no. 57258/00, § 41, 19 December 2006).

  In that connection, the Court reiterates that the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are also factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with freedom of expression (see Yarar v. Turkey, no. 57258/00, § 41, 19 December 2006).

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02

  In particular, it must determine whether the interference in question was "proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued" and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient" (see, among other authorities, Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23168/94

  KARATAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02

  The Court stresses, however, that whilst this assessment should not be taken as an approval of the tone of these slogans, it must be recalled that Article 10 protects not only the substance of the ideas and information expressed, but also the form in which they are conveyed (see, Karatas v. Turkey [GC], no. 23168/94, § 49, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23927/94

  SÜREK AND ÖZDEMIR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02

  Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no "democratic society" (see, Sürek and Özdemir v. Turkey [GC], nos. 23927/94 and 24277/94, § 57, 8 July 1999).
• EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 37096/97

  KARADEMIRCI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02

  The Court considers that the applicants' complaints should be examined solely under Article 10 of the Convention (see, Karademirci and Others v. Turkey, nos. 37096/97 and 37101/97, § 26, ECHR 2005-I).

• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 69270/12

  ÖZER c. TURQUIE (N° 3)

  Elle a conclu, dans ces affaires, que ces écrits, déclarations et actes, même s'ils avaient parfois un caractère hostile et véhiculaient des critiques acerbes à l'égard des autorités étatiques ou des opinions susceptibles d'être considérées favorables à l'égard de certaines organisations illégales ou de leurs dirigeants ou membres, pris dans leur ensemble, ne pouvaient être regardés comme contenant un appel à l'usage de la violence, à la résistance armée ou au soulèvement, ni comme constituant un discours de haine, et qu'ils n'étaient pas non plus susceptibles de favoriser la violence en insufflant une haine profonde et irrationnelle envers des personnes identifiées, tout en précisant qu'il s'agissait là, à ses yeux, d'éléments essentiels à prendre en considération (voir, à cet égard, Ayhan c. Turquie (no 1), no 45585/99, § 38, 10 novembre 2004, Gül et autres c. Turquie, no 4870/02, §§ 41 et 42, 8 juin 2010, Çamyar et Berkta?Ÿ c. Turquie, no 41959/02, §§ 40-42, 15 février 2011, Yavuz et Yaylali, précité, § 52, Faruk Temel, précité, § 62, Öner et Türk, précité, § 24, Belge, précité, §§ 34 et 35, Fatih Ta?Ÿ c. Turquie (no 2), no 6813/09, § 18, 10 octobre 2017, Selahattin Demirta?Ÿ, précité, § 31, Bayar c. Turquie [comité], no 24548/10, § 23, 19 juin 2018, Sarita?Ÿ et Geyik c. Turquie [comité], no 70107/11, § 26, 19 juin 2018, Arslan et autres c. Turquie [comité], no 3752/11, § 29, 10 juillet 2018, Dündar et Aydinkaya c. Turquie [comité], no 37091/11, § 24, 10 juillet 2018, Polat et Tali c. Turquie [comité], no 5782/10, §§ 31 et 32, 25 septembre 2018, Özbay [comité], précité, § 45, Uçar c. Turquie [comité], no 53319/10, § 24, 5 mars 2019, Polat [comité], précité, § 30, Dagtekin c. Turquie [comité], no 69448/10, § 25, 28 mai 2019, Ta?Ÿ Çakar c. Turquie [comité], no 73487/12, § 23, 28 mai 2019, Kilinç c. Turquie [comité], no 73954/11, 2 juillet 2019, Ete c. Turquie [comité], no 35575/12, § 25, 3 septembre 2019, Kalkan c. Turquie [comité], no 21196/12, § 22, 1er octobre 2019, Aramaz c. Turquie [comité], no 62928/12, §§ 19 et 20, 1er octobre 2019, Yamaç c. Turquie [comité], nos 69604/12 et 5642/13, § 34, 1er octobre 2019, et Kalkan c. Turquie [comité], no 54698/13, 1er octobre 2019).
• EGMR, 06.04.2021 - 34313/06

  OLGA KUDRINA v. RUSSIA

  In particular, the Court notes that the applicant's conduct, although involving a certain degree of disturbance and causing some damage to property, did not amount to violence or incite it; and no persons were injured during the protest in which the applicant was implicated (see, for similar reasoning, Taranenko, cited above, § 93; Gül and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870/02, § 42, 8 June 2010; and contrast Osmani and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 50841/99, ECHR 2001-X, where the police were attacked by a group of about 200 people, who were armed with metal sticks and threw stones, rocks, Molotov cocktails and teargas projectiles at them).
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 5782/10

  POLAT AND TALI v. TURKEY

  25067/94 and 25068/94, §§ 32-55, ECHR 1999-IV; Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, §§ 34-52, 8 July 1999; Koç and Tambas v. Turkey, no. 50934/99, §§ 25-40, 21 March 2006; Ulusoy v. Turkey, no. 52709/99, §§ 31-49, 31 July 2007; Savgin v. Turkey, no. 13304/03, §§ 39-48, 2 February 2010; Gül and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870/02, §§ 32-45, 8 June 2010; Mentes v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 33347/04, §§ 39-54, 25 January 2011; Kiliç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, §§ 20-31, 29 November 2011; Faruk Temel, cited above, §§ 58-64; Yavuz and Yaylali v. Turkey, no. 12606/11, §§ 42-55, 17 December 2013; Öner and Türk, cited above, §§ 19-27, 31 March 2015; and Belge v. Turkey, no. 50171/09, §§ 24-38, 6 December 2016).