Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 34202/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,27142
EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 34202/06 (https://dejure.org/2012,27142)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.07.2012 - 34202/06 (https://dejure.org/2012,27142)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. Juli 2012 - 34202/06 (https://dejure.org/2012,27142)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,27142) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    BERLADIR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11+10 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2 MRK
    No violation of Article 11+10-1 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly) (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General) ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (28)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

  • EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

    KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 34202/06
    As a general rule, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and it is for the latter to establish the facts on the basis of the evidence before them (see, among other authorities, Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 29, Series A no. 269).

    As a general rule, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and it is for the latter to establish the facts on the basis of the evidence before them (see, among other authorities, Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 29, Series A no. 269).

  • EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 44079/98

    THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN AND IVANOV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 34202/06
    In view of these considerations, the Court considers that since the applicants were negatively affected by the situation there has been an interference with the exercise of their freedom of peaceful assembly guaranteed by Article 11 § 1 of the Convention, this right being guaranteed to persons organising as well as participating in a public gathering (see Djavit An, cited above, § 56; Patyi and Others v. Hungary, no. 5529/05, §§ 25-27, 7 October 2008, and The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 44079/98, § 103, 20 October 2005).

    At the same time, the Court has also reiterated that where the location of the assembly is crucial to the participants, an order to change it may constitute an interference with their freedom of assembly under Article 11 of the Convention, which is at the heart of the present case (see The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 44079/98, § 103, 20 October 2005, and Van den Dungen v. the Netherlands, no. 22838/93, Commission decision of 22 February 1995).

  • EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

    FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 34202/06
    Furthermore, the Court reiterates that strong reasons are required for justifying restrictions on political speech or speech on serious matters of public interest, as broad restrictions imposed in individual cases would undoubtedly affect respect for freedom of expression in general in the State concerned (see Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 36, 14 December 2006; Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
  • EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 74552/01

    OYA ATAMAN c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 34202/06
    The Court reiterates that although a demonstration in a public place may cause some disruption to ordinary life, including disruption of traffic, it is important for the public authorities to show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of its substance (see Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, §§ 116 and 117, 15 November 2007; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 37, ECHR 2007-III; Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, §§ 38-42, ECHR 2006-XIII; and Akgöl and Göl v. Turkey, nos. 28495/06 and 28516/06, § 43, 17 May 2011).
  • EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 29372/02

    KARMAN v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 34202/06
    Furthermore, the Court reiterates that strong reasons are required for justifying restrictions on political speech or speech on serious matters of public interest, as broad restrictions imposed in individual cases would undoubtedly affect respect for freedom of expression in general in the State concerned (see Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 36, 14 December 2006; Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
  • EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 25691/04

    BUKTA ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 34202/06
    The Court reiterates that although a demonstration in a public place may cause some disruption to ordinary life, including disruption of traffic, it is important for the public authorities to show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of its substance (see Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, §§ 116 and 117, 15 November 2007; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 37, ECHR 2007-III; Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, §§ 38-42, ECHR 2006-XIII; and Akgöl and Göl v. Turkey, nos. 28495/06 and 28516/06, § 43, 17 May 2011).
  • EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 28495/06

    AKGÖL AND GOL v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 34202/06
    The Court reiterates that although a demonstration in a public place may cause some disruption to ordinary life, including disruption of traffic, it is important for the public authorities to show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of its substance (see Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, §§ 116 and 117, 15 November 2007; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 37, ECHR 2007-III; Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, §§ 38-42, ECHR 2006-XIII; and Akgöl and Göl v. Turkey, nos. 28495/06 and 28516/06, § 43, 17 May 2011).
  • EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 24360/04

    GIURAN v. ROMANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 34202/06
    Besides a mere reference to the amount of fines against the applicants, the Government have not explained why they consider that the applicants have suffered no "significant disadvantage" (see, among others, Giuran v. Romania, no. 24360/04, §§ 21-23, ECHR 2011 (extracts), and Van Velden v. the Netherlands, no. 30666/08, §§ 37-39, 19 July 2011).
  • EKMR, 22.02.1995 - 22838/93

    VAN DEN DUNGEN c. PAYS-BAS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 34202/06
    At the same time, the Court has also reiterated that where the location of the assembly is crucial to the participants, an order to change it may constitute an interference with their freedom of assembly under Article 11 of the Convention, which is at the heart of the present case (see The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 44079/98, § 103, 20 October 2005, and Van den Dungen v. the Netherlands, no. 22838/93, Commission decision of 22 February 1995).
  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

    HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 34202/06
    The Court also notes at this juncture that, whilst the adjective "necessary", within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 or 11 § 2 is not synonymous with "indispensable", it remains for the national authorities to make the initial assessment of the reality of the pressing social need implied by the notion of "necessity" in this context (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24).
  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

    SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  • EGMR, 19.11.2015 - 46998/08

    MIKHAYLOVA v. RUSSIA

    Noting the nature of the issues raised in the present case, which also arguably concerns an important matter of principle, as well as the scope of the limitations, the Court does not find it appropriate to dismiss the present application with reference to Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 34, 10 July 2012, and also paragraph 40 above).

    [4] In Berladir v. Russia (no. 34202/06, 10 July 2012) the Court had already accepted that a fine of the same amount was not sufficient in itself to render the application inadmissible.

  • EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 21613/07

    KASPAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    In particular, where irregular demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (ibid., § 42; see also Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012, and Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012).
  • EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 76204/11

    NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA

    In particular, where irregular demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (ibid., § 42; see also see Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012; Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 136-37, 30 May 2013, and Kasparov, cited above, § 91).
  • EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 17391/06

    PRIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    In particular, where irregular demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings (see Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012; Galstyan, cited above, §§ 116-117; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 37, ECHR 2007-III; Oya Ataman, cited above, §§ 38-42; and Akgöl and Göl v. Turkey, nos. 28495/06 and 28516/06, § 43, 17 May 2011).
  • EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 1562/10

    REMUSZKO v. POLAND

    The same finding was reiterated in Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 58, 10 July 2012, mutatis mutandis.
  • EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 8029/07

    GÜN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

    La Cour reconnaît que toute manifestation dans un lieu public est susceptible de causer un certain désordre dans le déroulement de la vie quotidienne et de susciter des réactions hostiles ; elle estime que cette circonstance ne justifie pas en soi une atteinte à la liberté de réunion (Achouguian c. Arménie, no 33268/03, § 90, 17 juillet 2008, Berladir et autres c. Russie, no 34202/06, §§ 38-43, 10 juillet 2012, et Disk et Kesk c. Turquie, no 38676/08, § 29, 27 novembre 2012).
  • EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 29356/19

    PLESHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    That said, the Court acknowledged that it was not well-suited to challenge the decisions of national authorities' concerning the suitability of a specific location for a public assembly, due to the complexity of assessing local factors like size, security, and traffic density (see Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 59, 10 July 2012, and Lashmankin and Others, cited above, § 417).
  • EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 29580/12

    NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA

    In particular, where irregular demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, § 42, ECHR 2006-XIV; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012; Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 136-37, 30 May 2013; and Kasparov and Others, cited above, § 91).
  • EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 9049/06

    ÖZALP ULUSOY c. TURQUIE

    A cet égard, la Cour rappelle sa jurisprudence selon laquelle toute manifestation dans un lieu public est susceptible de causer un certain désordre dans le déroulement de la vie quotidienne et de susciter des réactions hostiles, situation qui ne justifie pas en soi une atteinte à la liberté de réunion (Berladir et autres c. Russie, no 34202/06, §§ 38-43, 10 juillet 2012).
  • EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 36487/07

    ÇELIK c. TURQUIE (N° 3)

    A cet égard, elle rappelle sa jurisprudence selon laquelle toute manifestation dans un lieu public est susceptible de causer un certain désordre dans le déroulement de la vie quotidienne et de susciter des réactions hostiles ; elle estime que cette circonstance ne justifie pas en soi une atteinte à la liberté de réunion (Berladir et autres c. Russie, no 34202/06, §§ 38-43, 10 juillet 2012).
  • EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 60087/10

    ÖGRÜ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 20347/07

    EGITIM VE BILIM EMEKÇILERI SENDIKASI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 4524/06

    YILMAZ YILDIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 24.05.2022 - 70098/12

    ALICI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 70396/11

    AKARSUBASI c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 56395/08

    ÖZBENT ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 41192/11

    AMAGHLOBELI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  • EGMR, 03.09.2020 - 11157/11

    YORDANOVI c. BULGARIE

  • EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 54430/08

    MATVEYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 17843/11

    DINÇER c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 19631/12

    ÖGRÜ c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51988/07

    KASPAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  • EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 9117/04

    NOSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 30.05.2023 - 77154/12

    ALÇIÇEK ET TOPRAK c. TÜRKIYE

  • EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 56109/13

    KAPUSTINA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 42878/05

    SOLARI c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 12781/16

    PETRENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 19620/12

    AKARSUBASI ET ALÇIÇEK c. TURQUIE

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht