Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NILSEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 10, Art. 8, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 36882/05

  The position of the domestic authorities went against this Court's jurisprudence (notably, T v. the United Kingdom, application no. 8231/78 (1983) 49 DR 5; the above cited cases of Bamber and Hirst; Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61; Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, ECHR 2007-XIII; and Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts)).

  For example,... they continue to enjoy... the right to freedom of expression (Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 126-45, ECHR 2003-XII, and T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8231/78, Commission's report of 12 October 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84);... the right to respect for correspondence (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61);.

  Any restrictions on these other rights must be justified, although such justification may well be found in the considerations of security, in particular the prevention of crime and disorder, which inevitably flow from the circumstances of imprisonment (see, for example, [Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, §§ 99-105, Series A no. 61], where broad restrictions on the right of prisoners to correspond fell foul of Article 8, but the stopping of specific letters containing threats or other objectionable references was justifiable in the interests of the prevention of disorder or crime).

  The Court recalls that some control over the content of prisoners" communication outside the prison is part of the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment and is not, in principle, incompatible with Article 10 of the Convention (mutatis mutandis, Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 45, Series A no. 18 and Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 98, Series A no. 61).

• EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 39084/97

  YANKOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 36882/05

  The position of the domestic authorities went against this Court's jurisprudence (notably, T v. the United Kingdom, application no. 8231/78 (1983) 49 DR 5; the above cited cases of Bamber and Hirst; Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61; Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, ECHR 2007-XIII; and Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts)).

  The Court recalls the fundamental principles underlying its judgments as regards Article 10 of the Convention (Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, § 129, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts)) and as regards the rights enjoyed by prisoners as outlined in its Hirst judgment (cited above):.

  For example,... they continue to enjoy... the right to freedom of expression (Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 126-45, ECHR 2003-XII, and T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8231/78, Commission's report of 12 October 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84);... the right to respect for correspondence (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61);.

• EKMR, 06.03.1982 - 8231/78

  X. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 36882/05

  The position of the domestic authorities went against this Court's jurisprudence (notably, T v. the United Kingdom, application no. 8231/78 (1983) 49 DR 5; the above cited cases of Bamber and Hirst; Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61; Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, ECHR 2007-XIII; and Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts)).

  For example,... they continue to enjoy... the right to freedom of expression (Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 126-45, ECHR 2003-XII, and T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8231/78, Commission's report of 12 October 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84);... the right to respect for correspondence (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61);.

 
• EKMR, 11.09.1997 - 33742/96

  BAMBER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 36882/05

  In Bamber v. the United Kingdom (application no. 33742/96 (1997)) the Commission accepted that some measure of control over the content of prisoners" communications (the scope of which was not in issue in that case) was not in itself incompatible with the Convention.
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 36882/05

  The Court recalls that some control over the content of prisoners" communication outside the prison is part of the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment and is not, in principle, incompatible with Article 10 of the Convention (mutatis mutandis, Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 45, Series A no. 18 and Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 98, Series A no. 61).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 36882/05

  The Court does not therefore accept the argument that the material was already in the public domain (as in Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom (26 November 1991, §§ 66-70), Series A no. 216).

• EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 5386/10

  ZAYIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  However, in cases concerning seizures from inmates of book manuscripts intended for publication, it has found that there had been interferences with the applicants' right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention (see Nilsen v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 36882/05, § 44, 9 March 2010, and Sarigül v. Turkey, no. 28691/05, §§ 31-32, 23 May 2017; see also Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 126 et seq., ECHR 2003-XII (extracts), in which the Court examined under Article 10 the complaint by the applicant, a prisoner, who was punished for statements made in a confiscated book manuscript written by him in prison).
• EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 28691/05

  SARIGÜL c. TURQUIE

  Elle rappelle aussi avoir estimé dans une autre affaire que le grief relatif au refus de l'administration pénitentiaire de remettre à un détenu son manuscrit, que celui-ci voulait revoir en vue de sa publication, constituait une ingérence à l'égard de l'intéressé dans le droit à la liberté d'expression protégé par l'article 10 de la Convention (Nilsen c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 36882/05, § 44, 9 mars 2010).
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 52363/11

  BIDART c. FRANCE

  Il convient par ailleurs de rapprocher mutatis mutandis la présente espèce de l'affaire Nilsen c. Royaume-Uni (déc.) (no 36882/05, 9 mars 2010), dans laquelle, invoquant sa liberté d'expression, un détenu se plaignait du fait que le manuscrit de ses mémoires avait été confisqué au motif notamment qu'il relatait en détail les crimes pour lesquels il avait été condamné.
• EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 20686/19

  MURAT TÜRK c. TURQUIE

  La Cour considère que le refus de remettre au requérant son manuscrit, portant un scénario de film, en vue de sa révision par l'intéressé constitue une ingérence dans le droit du requérant à la liberté d'expression (Nilsen c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 36882/05, § 44, 9 mars 2010, voir aussi Sarigül c. Turquie, no 28691/05, §§ 31 et 32, 23 mai 2017 et Günana et autres c. Turquie, nos 70934/10 et 4 autres, §§ 60 et 61, 20 novembre 2018).