Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HALIT KARA v. TÜRKIYE

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KARA c. TURQUIE

  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84

  PFEIFER ET PLANKL c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 60846/19

  The prison authorities and the trial courts in the present case also did not provide adequate reasoning as regards the possibility of dispatching the letter after redacting the specific parts that were considered to be objectionable (compare and contrast Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria, 25 February 1992, §§ 47-48, Series A no. 227, where the Court, despite finding a violation of Article 8, emphasised that the deletion of a part of a letter was a less serious interference than stopping it).
• EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 15672/08

  MEHMET NURI ÖZEN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 60846/19

  The Court has previously held that the mere monitoring of prisoners' correspondence by the authorities amounted to an "interference" with their right to respect for their correspondence within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (see Mehmet Nuri Özen and Others v. Turkey, nos. 15672/08 and 10 others, § 41, 11 January 2011, with further references).
• EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 3468/20

  SUBASI AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 60846/19

  Accordingly, the Court will examine the reasons given by the prison authorities in refusing to dispatch the letter in question and the manner in which the domestic courts addressed those reasons in the light of the applicant's arguments (see, mutatis mutandis, Subasi and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, § 85, 6 December 2022).

 
• EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 9460/03

  TAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 60846/19

  Furthermore, it is not in dispute between the parties, and the Court accepts, that the interference in question had a legal basis, namely section 68(3) of Law no. 5275 and section 91(3) of the Regulation, which was in force at the material time, read in conjunction with other relevant domestic provisions (see paragraphs 8, 10 and 14-19 above; compare and contrast Tan v. Turkey, no. 9460/03, §§ 22-24, 3 July 2007, and Mehmet Nuri Özen and Others, cited above, §§ 53-59).
• EGMR, 30.01.2007 - 77097/01

  EKINCI ET AKALIN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 60846/19

  The Court also reiterates that it has previously found that the interception of private letters simply because they contained material deliberately calculated to hold the prison authorities up to contempt or allegations against prison officers was not necessary in a democratic society (see Silver and Others, cited above, §§ 64, 69, 91 and 99, and Ekinci and Akalin v. Turkey, no. 77097/01, § 47, 30 January 2007).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 60846/19

  Some measure of control over prisoners' correspondence is called for, and is not of itself incompatible with the Convention, regard being paid to the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 98, Series A no. 61, and Klibisz v. Poland, no. 2235/02, § 338, 4 October 2016).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 13237/17

  Türkei wegen Haft für Journalisten verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 60846/19

  At this stage the Court would reiterate that in Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey (no. 13237/17, § 93, 20 March 2018), it noted that the attempted military coup had revealed the existence of a "public emergency threatening the life of the nation" within the meaning of the Convention (see Piskin, cited above, § 59).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 60846/19

  The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114 and 126, 20 March 2018), considers that this complaint falls to be examined solely under Article 8 of the Convention (see Tur v. Turkey, no. 13692/03, § 14, 11 June 2013).
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 60846/19

  In assessing the permissible extent of such control in general, the fact that the opportunity to write and to receive letters is sometimes the prisoner's only link with the outside world should, however, not be overlooked (see Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, § 45, Series A no. 233, and Yefimenko, cited above, § 143).
• EGMR, 15.12.2020 - 33399/18

  PISKIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 60846/19

  PRELIMINARY REMARKS CONCERNING THE DEROGATION BY TÜRKIYE 21. The Government pointed out that the application should be examined with due regard to the Notice of Derogation transmitted to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on 21 July 2016 under Article 15 of the Convention (see, for the text of the Notice of Derogation and further details, Piskin v. Turkey, no. 33399/18, §§ 55-56, 15 December 2020).
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 152/04

  YEFIMENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 53208/19

  MEHMET ÇIFTCI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 49341/18

  NUH UZUN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 41726/20

  AKKURT c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 6992/18

  KAYA ET BAL c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 08.07.2020 - 2235/02

  KLIBISZ AGAINST POLAND
• EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 51895/99

  KWIEK v. POLAND