Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DUZGOREN v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 regarding the independence and impartiality of the military court Violation of Art. 10 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 56827/00
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 56827/00

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 56827/00

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, Sener v. Turkey, no. 26680/95, §§ 39-42, 18 July 2000; Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 64, ECHR 1999-VI; and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 22479/93

  ÖZTÜRK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 56827/00

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, Sener v. Turkey, no. 26680/95, §§ 39-42, 18 July 2000; Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 64, ECHR 1999-VI; and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 18.07.2000 - 26680/95

  SENER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 56827/00

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, Sener v. Turkey, no. 26680/95, §§ 39-42, 18 July 2000; Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 64, ECHR 1999-VI; and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I).
• EKMR, 16.05.1977 - 7050/75

  ARROWSMITH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 56827/00

  In addition, the context in which the opinions were expressed can be distinguished, as regards their potential impact, from that of the Arrowsmith case, in which the applicant, a pacifist activist, had distributed a leaflet inciting servicemen to desert at a military camp occupied by troops who were shortly to be posted to Northern Ireland (see Arrowsmith v. the United Kingdom, no. 7050/75, Commission's report of 12 October 1978, Decisions and Reports (DR) 19, p. 5).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24919/94

  GERGER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 56827/00

  It considers that, although the words used in the impugned article give it a connotation hostile to military service, they do not encourage violence, armed resistance or insurrection and do not constitute hate speech (see Ergin (no. 6), cited above, § 34; contrast Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-IV; and Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 50, 8 July 1999).

• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 43965/04

  ERÇEP c. TURQUIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà examiné des griefs similaires à celui présenté par le requérant et qu'elle a alors conclu à la violation de l'article 6 de la Convention (Ergin c. Turquie (no 6), no 47533/99, § 54, CEDH 2006-VI (extraits), et Düzgören c. Turquie, no 56827/00, § 20, 9 novembre 2006), jugeant notamment qu'il était compréhensible qu'un civil qui répondait devant un tribunal composé exclusivement de militaires d'infractions relatives à la propagande contre le service militaire ait redouté de comparaître devant des juges appartenant à l'armée, laquelle pouvait être assimilée à une partie à la procédure, que, de ce fait, l'intéressé pouvait légitimement craindre que le Tribunal de l'état-major se laissât indûment guider par des considérations partiales, et que l'on pouvait donc considérer qu'étaient objectivement justifiés les doutes nourris par lui quant à l'indépendance et à l'impartialité de cette juridiction.
• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 70335/01

  YURDATAPAN v. TURKEY

  The Court recalls that it had already examined the contents of the leaflet in question in its judgment in the case of Düzgören v. Turkey (application no. 56827/00, §§ 23-34, 9 November 2006).