Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PARTI DE LA LIBERTE ET DE LA DEMOCRATIE (ÖZDEP) c. TURQUIE

  Art. 9, Art. 10, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 14, Art. 17, Art. 41, Art. 34 MRK
  Exception préliminaire rejetée (victime) Violation de l'art. 11 Non-lieu à examiner les art. 9 10 ou 14 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY PARTY (ÖZDEP) v. TURKEY

  Art. 9, Art. 10, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 14, Art. 17, Art. 41, Art. 34 MRK
  Preliminary objection rejected (victim) Violation of Art. 11 Not necessary to examine Art. 9 10 or 14 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Besprechungen u.ä.

• zaoerv.de (Aufsatz mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)

  Parteiverbote auf dem europäischen Prüfstand (Dr. Katharina Pabel; ZaöRV 2003, 921)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 02.09.1996 - 23885/94
• EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 23885/94

Wird zitiert von ... (34)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 11613/85

  KOLOMPAR c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 23885/94

  In addition, as the Court has already noted, section 108 of the Law on the regulation of political parties provides "[a] resolution by the competent body of a political party dissolving that party after an application for its dissolution has been lodged shall not prevent the proceedings before the Constitutional Court continuing or deprive any dissolution order that is made of its legal effects." It therefore follows that as domestic law provides that a voluntarily dissolved political party remains in existence for the purposes of dissolution by the Constitutional Court, the Government cannot contend before the Court that ÖZDEP was no longer in existence when the dissolution order was made (see, mutatis mutandis , the Kolompar v. Belgium judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C, p. 54, § 32 and the Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland judgment of 29 October 1992, Series A 246-A, p. 22, § 42).

• BVerfG, 17.01.2017 - 2 BvB 1/13

  Kein Verbot der NPD wegen fehlender Anhaltspunkte für eine erfolgreiche …

  In seine Prüfung bezieht der EGMR auf der Rechtfertigungsebene ergänzend die Frage einer Unanwendbarkeit der Konventionsrechte aufgrund Art. 17 EMRK ein (vgl. EGMR , United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, Urteil vom 30. Januar 1998, Nr. 133/1996/752/951, § 60; EGMR , Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey, Urteil vom 25. Mai 1998, Nr. 20/1997/804/1007, §§ 29 und 53; EGMR , Freedom and Democracy Party v. Turkey, Urteil vom 8. Dezember 1999, Nr. 23885/94, § 47).
• EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 7334/13

  MURSIC c. CROATIE

  They include non-conventional international agreements, like the Helsinki Final Act (see for example, Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey, no. 23885/94, § 40, 8 December 1999); treaties not ratified by the respondent State (see for example, Marckx, cited above); declarations of international organisations, like the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and other General Assembly Declarations (see for example, K.-H. W. v. Germany [GC], no. 37201/97, § 95, ECHR 2001-II); resolutions and recommendations of international organisations, like those of the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (see for example, Mosley v. United Kingdom, no. 48009/08,,§§ 87, 119 and 124, 10 May 2011); General Comments of international organisations, like those adopted by the United Nations treaties bodies (see for example, Bayatyan v. Armenia [GC], no. 23459/03, § 105, ECHR 2007); and Codes of Conduct and Guidelines of international organisations, like those of the World Health Organisation (see for example, Oluic v. Croatia, no. 61260/08, § 60, 20 May 2010); commentaries and studies by ONGs, like the International Committee of the Red Cross study on customary international humanitarian law and commentaries on the Geneva conventions (see for example, Korbely v. Hungary, no. 9174/02, §§ 50, 51 and 90, ECHR 2008), and reports of individuals, like those of the United Nations Secretary-General (Korbely, cited above, § 90).
• EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 41340/98

  Refah Partisi (Wohlfahrtspartei)

  Drastic measures, such as the dissolution of an entire political party and a disability barring its leaders from carrying on any similar activity for a specified period, may be taken only in the most serious cases (see the following judgments: United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, cited above, § 46; Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey, cited above, § 50; and Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey [GC], no. 23885/94, § 45, ECHR 1999-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30985/96

  HASSAN ET TCHAOUCH c. BULGARIE

  The Court finds therefore that the claim for pecuniary damages cannot be granted (cf.  Freedom and Democracy Party (VZDEP) v. Turkey [GC], no. 23885/94, ' 54, ECHR 1999- ).
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 10226/03

  Yumak und Sadak ./. Türkei

  Or, comme la Cour l'a répété souvent, il n'y a pas de démocratie sans pluralisme (Parti de la liberté et de la démocratie (ÖZDEP) c. Turquie [GC], no 23885/94, §§ 39 et 41, CEDH 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 37553/05

  KUDREVICIUS ET AUTRES c. LITUANIE

  At the same time, notwithstanding its autonomous role and particular sphere of application, Article 11 must also be considered in the light of Article 10, where the aim of the exercise of freedom of assembly is the expression of personal opinions (see Ezelin, cited above, § 37; Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey [GC], no. 23885/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-VIII; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 41, 24 July 2012; and Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, § 62, 31 July 2014), as well as the need to secure a forum for public debate and the open expression of protest (see Éva Molnár v. Hungary, no. 10346/05, § 42, 7 October 2008).
• EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 25803/04

  HERRI BATASUNA ET BATASUNA c. ESPAGNE

  (...) Les critères établis par la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme en matière de dissolution de partis politiques sont donc respectés (Parti communiste unifié de Turquie et autres c. Turquie, arrêt du 30 janvier 1998, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-I, Parti socialiste et autres c. Turquie, arrêt du 25 mai 1998, Recueil 1998-III, Parti de la liberté et de la démocratie (ÖZDEP) c. Turquie [GC], no 23885/94, CEDH 1999-VIII, Refah Partisi (Parti de la prospérité) et autres c. Turquie, nos 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 et 41344/98, 31 juillet 2001 et [GC], CEDH 2003-II, Yazar et autres c. Turquie, nos 22723/93, 22724/93 et 22725/93, CEDH 2002-II, Dicle pour le Parti de la démocratie (DEP) c. Turquie, no 25141/94, 10 décembre 2002).

  En outre, il est bien établi dans la jurisprudence de la Cour que des mesures sévères, telles que la dissolution de tout un parti politique, ne peuvent s'appliquer qu'aux cas les plus graves (voir Refah Partisi ; Parti communiste unifié de Turquie et autres, précité, § 46, Parti socialiste et autres c. Turquie, 25 mai 1998, § 50, Recueil 1998-III, et Parti de la liberté et de la démocratie (ÖZDEP) c. Turquie [GC], no 23885/94, § 45, CEDH 1999-VIII).

• EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93

  OZGUR GUNDEM c. TURQUIE

  Consequently, it is unable to accept it (Rule 60 § 2 of the Rules of Court; see, mutatis mutandis, the Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey judgment cited above, p. 1261, § 67)." (Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey [GC], no. 23885/94, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL

  Furthermore, in the Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) case, the Court awarded the applicant, a political party, compensation for non-pecuniary damage on account of the frustration its members and founders had suffered as a result of a violation of Article 11 of the Convention (see Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey [GC], no. 23885/94, § 57, ECHR 1999-VIII).

  It is obvious that in so doing the Court relies on the precedent of Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey ([GC], no. 23885/94, ECHR 1999-VIII) to answer the submission of the Portuguese Government that non-pecuniary compensation in length of proceedings cases "was to provide reparation for anxiety, the mental stress of having to wait for the outcome of the case and uncertainty... feelings [which] were peculiar to individuals and could under no circumstances entitle a company to compensation".

• EGMR, 16.03.2006 - 58278/00

  ZDANOKA v. LATVIA

  In so doing, it has to satisfy itself that the national authorities based their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts, and did not reach arbitrary conclusions (see, for example, Vogt, cited above, § 52; Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 44, Reports 1998-III; Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey [GC], no. 23885/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 06.06.2006 - 62332/00

  SEGERSTEDT-WIBERG ET AUTRES c. SUEDE
• EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 28793/02

  CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S PARTY v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 31276/05

  WOMEN ON WAVES ET AUTRES c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 4687/11

  LIGA PORTUGUESA DE FUTEBOL PROFISSIONAL c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 13918/06

  SAVENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 20641/05

  EGITIM VE BILIM EMEKÇILERI SENDIKASI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 31706/10

  GÜLER ET UGUR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 16.12.2004 - 39023/97

  SUPREME HOLY COUNCIL OF THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 26698/05

  TOURKIKI ENOSI XANTHIS ET AUTRES c. GRECE
• EGMR, 19.01.2006 - 59491/00

  THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 32283/04

  MELTEX LTD AND MOVSESYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 28635/95

  IBRAHIM AKSOY c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58369/10

  STAATKUNDIG GEREFORMEERDE PARTIJ v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 18.03.2010 - 58939/00

  KOUZMIN c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 25803/04

  HERRI BATASUNA ET BATASUNA c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 17.12.2020 - 66994/14

  CROATIAN GOLF FEDERATION v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 29496/16

  THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (No. 3)
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 34960/04

  THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 26258/07

  RAI ET EVANS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 69483/13

  MUSTAFA HAJILI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 74258/01

  URBARSKA OBEC TRENCIANSKE BISKUPICE v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 65196/01

  RÍMSKOKATOLICKÁ FARNOST OBRÍSTVÍ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 26.04.2005 - 39210/98

  PARTI DE LA DEMOCRATIE ET DE L'EVOLUTION ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 15.05.2001 - 40307/98

  MATTEI contre la FRANCE