Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AHMET HÜSREV ALTAN v. TURKEY

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security ...

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (27)

• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 13252/17

  Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 38, Series A no. 313; Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 42, Series A no. 236; Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24; and Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 37, Series A no. 298).

  In that connection, I would refer to the extensive case-law of the Court regarding the importance of responsible journalism (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298; Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, ECHR 1999-IV; Sürek v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 24122/94, 8 July 1999; Sürek v. Turkey (no. 3) [GC], no. 24735/94, 8 July 1999; and Saygili and Falakaoglu v. Turkey, no. 22147/02 and 24972/03, 23 January 2007).

• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14

  RASUL JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 13252/17

  In this regard, the fact that a suspicion is held in good faith is insufficient (see Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69981/14, § 116, 17 March 2016).

  In this regard, the fact that a suspicion is held in good faith is insufficient (see Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69981/14, § 116, 17 March 2016).

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 13252/17

  Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 38, Series A no. 313; Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 42, Series A no. 236; Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24; and Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 37, Series A no. 298).

 
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 13252/17

  Although the press must not overstep certain bounds, in particular in respect of the prevention of disorder and the protection of the reputation of others, its duty is nevertheless to impart - in a manner consistent with its obligations and responsibilities - information and ideas on all matters of public interest (see De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, 24 February 1997, § 37, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 65, Series A no. 30, and Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 13252/17

  Although the press must not overstep certain bounds, in particular in respect of the prevention of disorder and the protection of the reputation of others, its duty is nevertheless to impart - in a manner consistent with its obligations and responsibilities - information and ideas on all matters of public interest (see De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, 24 February 1997, § 37, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 65, Series A no. 30, and Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216).
• EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84

  MÜLLER AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 13252/17

  A law which confers a discretion is not in itself inconsistent with this requirement, provided that the scope of the discretion and the manner of its exercise are indicated with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim in question, to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see, among many other authorities, Müller and Others v. Switzerland, 24 May 1988, § 29, Series A no. 133; Ezelin v. France, 26 April 1991, § 45, Series A no. 202; and Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden, 25 February 1992, § 75, Series A no. 226-A).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 13252/17

  Article 10 protects not only the substance of the ideas and information expressed, but also the form in which they are conveyed (see Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), 23 May 1991, § 57, Series A no. 204).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 13252/17

  Indeed, Article 2 of Article 10 defines the boundaries of the exercise of freedom of expression (see, Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 13252/17

  Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 38, Series A no. 313; Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 42, Series A no. 236; Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24; and Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 37, Series A no. 298).
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 13252/17

  Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (see Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 63, Series A no. 239, and Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 12963/87

  MARGARETA AND ROGER ANDERSSON v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 23541/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (wesentliche Verfahrensakten; …
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 25116/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (nicht nur auszugsweise Einsicht in …
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01

  REINPRECHT c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 27154/95

  D.N. c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 41970/11

  SHCHERBINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 28691/05

  SARIGÜL c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 21235/11

  POYRAZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 72774/10

  ÇIÇEK c. TURQUIE
• EKMR, 07.03.1994 - 20357/92

  WHITESIDE c. ROYAUME-UNI

• EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 27684/17

  Türkei muss Deniz Yücel für Untersuchungshaft entschädigen

  Pour ce qui est de la possibilité de demander réparation de la violation de l'article 5 § 1, la Cour note que l'article 141 du CPP ne prévoit pas expressément la possibilité de demander réparation d'un préjudice subi en raison de l'absence de raisons plausibles de soupçonner une personne d'avoir commis une infraction pénale (Ahmet Hüsrev Altan c. Turquie, no 13252/17, § 190, 13 avril 2021).
• EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 59/17

  AYDIN SEFA AKAY v. TÜRKIYE

  DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 76. The relevant provisions of the Constitution, the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure may be found in, among other authorities, Ahmet Hüsrev Altan v. Turkey (no. 13252/17, §§ 68-69 and §§ 77-84, 13 April 2021), Budak v. Turkey (no. 69762/12, § 34, 16 February 2021) and Kavala v. Turkey (no. 28749/18, § 73, 10 December 2019).

  In view of the above, the Court is of the view that the state of emergency is undoubtedly a contextual factor that should be fully taken into account in interpreting and applying Article 5 of the Convention in the present case (see Ahmet Hüsrev Altan v. Turkey, no. 13252/17, §§ 101-03, 13 April 2021).

• EGMR, 31.05.2022 - 208/18

  U-Haft für türkischen Amnesty-Chef war rechtswidrig

  Il convient aussi de rappeler que le Gouvernement n'a produit aucune décision judiciaire concernant l'octroi d'une indemnisation, sur la base de cette disposition du code de procédure pénale, à toute personne se trouvant dans une situation similaire à celle du requérant (Ahmet Hüsrev Altan c. Turquie, no 13252/17, § 190, 13 avril 2021).

  Sur ce point, nous renvoyons aux opinions partiellement dissidentes du juge Kuris jointes aux arrêts Sabuncu et autres c. Turquie (no 23199/17, 10 novembre 2020) et Ahmet Hüsrev Altan c. Turquie (no 13252/17, 13 avril 2021).

 
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 1210/17

  ILICAK c. TURQUIE (N° 2)

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a exposé dans les arrêts Ahmet Hüsrev Altan (no 13252/17, §§ 124-129, 13 avril 2021), Sabuncu et autres (précité, §§ 142-150) et, mutatis mutandis, Selahattin Demirtas (no 2) (précité, §§ 311-321), les principes découlant de sa jurisprudence relative à l'article 5 §§ 1 et 3 de la Convention et à la plausibilité des soupçons qui devraient fonder les décisions de mise et de maintien en détention des journalistes visés par des poursuites pénales déclenchées dans le cadre de la lutte contre le terrorisme, principalement pour leurs écrits dans les mass media ou sur les réseaux sociaux.

  Avant d'exposer la motivation de mon opinion, je souhaiterais rappeler les circonstances uniques qui prévalaient à l'époque où la requérante a été arrêtée, le 26 juillet 2016, c'est-à-dire pendant la période qui a immédiatement suivi la tentative de coup d'État du 15 juillet 2016, et je renvoie à cet égard à l'arrêt rendu par la Cour dans l'affaire Ahmet Hüsrev Altan c. Turquie (no 13252/17, §§ 12-17 et 88, 13 avril 2021), qui décrit en détail la structure du FETÖ/PDY ainsi que les faits qui ont entouré cette tentative de coup d'État.

• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 84048/17

  EIGIRDAS AND VĮ "DEMOKRATIJOS PLETROS FONDAS" v. LITHUANIA

  Whilst it is true that editorial discretion is not unbounded, journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Perna v. Italy [GC], no. 48898/99, § 39 (a), ECHR 2003-V, and Ahmet Hüsrev Altan v. Turkey, no. 13252/17, § 214, 13 April 2021) and the methods of objective and balanced reporting may vary considerably; it is therefore not for this Court, or for the national courts, to substitute their own views for those of the press as to what reporting techniques should be adopted (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298).
• EGMR, 31.01.2023 - 43979/17

  ABDULLAH KILIÇ c. TÜRKIYE

  Plus particulièrement, pour ce qui est de la possibilité de demander réparation de la violation de l'article 5 § 1, l'article 141 du CPP ne prévoit pas expressément la possibilité de demander réparation d'un préjudice subi en raison de l'absence de raisons plausibles de soupçonner une personne d'avoir commis une infraction pénale (Ahmet Hüsrev Altan c. Turquie, no 13252/17, § 190, 13 avril 2021).
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 13668/21

  MELIA v. GEORGIA

  In sum, although the applicant's detention was ordered against the backdrop of bitter political antagonism between, on the one hand, the UNM and other opposition parties and, on the other hand, the ruling Georgian Dream party, the various points cited by the applicant, taken separately or in combination with each other, do not form a sufficiently homogenous whole for the Court to find that the applicant's detention pursued a purpose not prescribed by the Convention (see, for instance, Ahmet Hüsrev Altan v. Turkey, no. 13252/17, § 246, 13 April 2021).
• EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 14332/17

  YÜKSEKDAG SENOGLU ET AUTRES c. TÜRKIYE

  Concernant son opinion juridique sur ces autres points, la juge Yüksel renvoie, sans explications supplémentaires, aux opinions séparées qu'elle a précédemment exprimées (Selahattin Demirta?Ÿ, précité, Ragip Zarakolu c. Türkiye, no 15064/12, 15 septembre 2020, Ahmet Hüsrev Altan c. Türkiye, no 13252/17, 13 avril 2021, Ögreten et Kanaat c. Türkiye, nos 42201/17 et 42212/17, 18 mai 2021, et Akgün c. Türkiye, no 19699/18, 20 juillet 2021).
• EGMR, 30.05.2023 - 60183/17

  PRICOPE v. ROMANIA

  Whilst it is true that editorial discretion is not unbounded, journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Perna v. Italy [GC], no. 48898/99, § 39 (a), ECHR 2003-V, and Ahmet Hüsrev Altan v. Turkey, no. 13252/17, § 214, 13 April 2021) and the methods of objective and balanced reporting may vary considerably; it is therefore not for this Court, or for the national courts, to substitute their own views for those of the press as to what reporting techniques should be adopted (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298).
• EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 22953/16

  STANCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Whilst it is true that editorial discretion is not unbounded, journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Perna v. Italy [GC], no. 48898/99, § 39 (a), ECHR 2003-V, and Ahmet Hüsrev Altan v. Turkey, no. 13252/17, § 214, 13 April 2021) and the methods of objective and balanced reporting may vary considerably; it is therefore not for this Court, nor for the national courts, to substitute its own views for those of the press as to what technique of reporting should be adopted (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298).