Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 33675/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,61862) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SEVER AND ASLAN v. TURKEY
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95
SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 33675/02
The Court reiterates that, where published material incites others to violence against an individual, a public official or a sector of the population, the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation in determining the need to interfere with freedom of expression (see, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-IV). - EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87
EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 33675/02
The Court's task under the Convention is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see, among others, Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, § 34). - EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80
UNTERPERTINGER v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 33675/02
In particular, the rights of the defence would be restricted to an extent which is incompatible with the requirements of Article 6 if the conviction is based solely, or in a decisive manner, on evidence that the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined either during the investigation or at trial (see, mutatis mutandis, Van Mechelen and Others, cited above, p. 712, § 55; Saïdi v. France judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, pp. 56-57, §§ 43-44; Unterpertinger v. Austria, judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110, pp. 14-15, §§ 31-33).
- EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 33340/03
BAHÇECI ET TURAN c. TURQUIE
Constatant que les seuls éléments de preuve fondant la condamnation des intéressés sont des formes d'expression (voir paragraphe 10 ci-dessus), la Cour conclut qu'il y a eu ingérence dans le droit à la liberté d'expression des requérants (voir Yılmaz et Kılıç c. Turquie, no 68514/01, § 58, 17 juillet 2008, Sever et Aslan c. Turquie (déc.), no 33675/02, 12 avril 2007, Emir, précité, § 34, ainsi que, mutatis mutandis, Çakar c. Turquie, no 42741/98, 23 octobre 2003 ; voir aussi, a contrario, Murat Kılıç c. Turquie (déc.), no 4098/98, 8 juillet 2003, et Sirin c. Turquie, (déc.), no 47328/99, 15 mars 2005).