Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TUSKIA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (20)

• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9540/07

  MURAT VURAL v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2018 - 14237/07

  As to the necessity in a democratic society of the interference at issue, it is true that the applicants by means of their protest wished to draw the attention of the University staff and the general public to their disapproval of the ongoing reforms at the University and their demand for the resignation of G.Kh. This was a topic of public interest at the material time and there was little scope under Articles 10 § 2 and 11 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on debate relating thereto (see Taranenko, cited above, § 77, and Murat Vural v. Turkey, no. 9540/07, § 52, 21 October 2014).
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 16133/08

  INSANOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2018 - 14237/07

  Moreover, where the applicant complains of numerous procedural defects, the Court may examine the various grounds giving rise to the complaint in turn in order to determine whether the proceedings, considered as a whole, were fair (see Insanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16133/08, §§ 159 et seq.
• EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 55287/10

  SETON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2018 - 14237/07

  The more important that evidence, the more weight the counterbalancing factors will have to carry in order for the proceedings as a whole to be considered fair (see Seton v the United Kingdom, no. 55287/10, § 59, 12 September 2016).

 
• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 28901/95

  ROWE AND DAVIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2018 - 14237/07

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, and the Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which evidence was obtained and heard, were fair - in particular, whether the applicant was given the opportunity of challenging the evidence and of opposing its use, and whether the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms between the prosecution and the defence were respected (see Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 88, 90, 10 March 2009, and Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, § 60, ECHR 2000-II).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2018 - 14237/07

  Consequently, States do not have to answer for their actions before an international body before they have had an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V, with further references therein).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

  Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Mitangeklagten als Zeugen im Sinne der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2018 - 14237/07

  The Court reiterates that, as the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1, it often examines the complaints under both provisions taken together (see, among many other authorities, Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 37, ECHR 2001-II; Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 82, ECHR 2001-II; and Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 29, Series A no. 277-A).
• EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 74552/01

  OYA ATAMAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2018 - 14237/07

  Subsequently, they had protested for about two hours in the office of the acting Rector, and the administration of the University (including the acting Rector) - and subsequently the police - showed the necessary tolerance (compare Kakabadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 1484/07, § 88, 2 October 2012; Açik and Others, cited above, § 46; and Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, §§ 41-42, ECHR 2006-XIV).
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 73693/01

  BABJAK and OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2018 - 14237/07

  They could have done so within the context of the impugned administrative proceedings (see, for example, Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, § 153, 22 April 2010) or, as proposed by the Government, by lodging a civil complaint (see, for example, Martin Babjak and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 73693/01, 30 March 2004).
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 40984/07

  FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2018 - 14237/07

  They could have done so within the context of the impugned administrative proceedings (see, for example, Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, § 153, 22 April 2010) or, as proposed by the Government, by lodging a civil complaint (see, for example, Martin Babjak and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 73693/01, 30 March 2004).
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2018 - 14237/07

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, and the Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which evidence was obtained and heard, were fair - in particular, whether the applicant was given the opportunity of challenging the evidence and of opposing its use, and whether the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms between the prosecution and the defence were respected (see Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 88, 90, 10 March 2009, and Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, § 60, ECHR 2000-II).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 25691/04

  BUKTA ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 31684/05

  BARRACO c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 23.10.2003 - 42741/98

  CAKAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 20652/92

  DJAVIT AN c. TURQUIE

• EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 56896/17

  LAURIJSEN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  However, and while recognising that protests which foreseeably or intentionally impede the activities of other private actors or public bodies are not at the core of the right to peaceful assembly in Article 11 of the Convention (see paragraph 52 above), such obstructive or disruptive conduct might still be protected by that provision (see, for example, Kudrevicius and Others, cited above, §§ 98-99 and 155-57; Tuskia and Others v. Georgia, no. 14237/07, §§ 74-75, 11 October 2018; Ekrem Can and Others v. Turkey, no. 10613/10, §§ 82-85, 8 March 2022; and Bumbes v. Romania, no. 18079/15, §§ 47-48, 3 May 2022).
• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 10613/10

  EKREM CAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court notes that even though the applicants relied on both Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention in relation to the same set of facts, their complaints stem not only from their being prevented from making a press statement, but also (and predominantly) from the intervention staged by the police in respect of their protest action, resulting in their forcible removal from the courthouse, where they had opened a banner, chanted slogans and thrown leaflets (see Tuskia and Others v. Georgia, no. 14237/07, § 73, 11 October 2018; also compare Açik and Others v. Turkey, no. 31451/03, § 40, 13 January 2009; and Karademirci and Others v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 13918/06

  SAVENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In cases involving complaints under Article 11 of the Convention the Court acknowledged locus standi of the applicants" close relatives wishing to pursue the proceedings before it instead of the deceased applicants (see Szerdahelyi v. Hungary, no. 30385/07, §§ 19-22, 17 January 2012; Karpyuk and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 30582/04 and 32152/04, § 90, 6 October 2015; Tuskia and Others v. Georgia, no. 14237/07, §§ 48-50, 11 October 2018; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 50271/06 and 8 Others, §§ 8-11, 2 July 2019; and Dubrovina and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 31333/07, §§ 21-24, 25 February 2020).
• EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 69483/13

  MUSTAFA HAJILI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  On the other hand, notwithstanding its autonomous role and particular sphere of application, Article 11 must also be considered in the light of Article 10. The protection of opinions and the freedom to express them, secured by Article 10, is one of the objectives of freedom of peaceful assembly enshrined in Article 11 (see, among many other authorities, Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey [GC], no. 23885/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-VIII; Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 85-86, 15 October 2015; and Tuskia and Others v. Georgia, no. 14237/07, § 73, 11 October 2018; see also the analysis in paragraph 66 below).