Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09, 7124/09   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2010,28645
EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09, 7124/09 (https://dejure.org/2010,28645)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14.09.2010 - 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09, 7124/09 (https://dejure.org/2010,28645)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14. September 2010 - 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09, 7124/09 (https://dejure.org/2010,28645)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,28645) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DINK c. TURQUIE

    Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+2, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Exception préliminaire jointe au fond et rejetée (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) Violation de l'art. 2 (volet matériel) Violation de l'art. 2 (volet procédural) Violation de l'art. 10 Violation de l'art. 13+2 Préjudice moral - réparation (französisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Sonstiges




Kontextvorschau:





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

Wird zitiert von ... (35)  

  • EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10

    Menschenrechtsgerichtshof verurteilt Türkei wegen Online-Zensur

    The Court reiterates at the outset that the expression "prescribed by law", within the meaning of Article 10 § 2, requires firstly that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; however, it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences, and that it should be compatible with the rule of law (see, among many other authorities, Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, § 114, 14 September 2010).
  • EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08

    Leugnung des Völkermords an den Armeniern kann von Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt sein

    In Dink v. Turkey (nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, 14 September 2010) the applicant was found guilty of denigrating "Turkishness" (Türklük).

    This is how we read the Dink v. Turkey judgment (nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, 14 September 2010).

  • EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

    PALOMO SANCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

    The extent of acceptable criticism when directed against a private individual was narrower than that directed against authorities or public institutions (contrast Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, § 133, ECHR 2010-...).
  • EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 48226/10

    Türkei wegen YouTube-Blockade verurteilt

    En conséquence, elle décide de joindre cette exception au fond (voir, dans le même sens, Dink c. Turquie, nos 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 et 7124/09, § 100, 14 septembre 2010, et Altug Taner Akçam c. Turquie, no 27520/07, § 51, 25 octobre 2011).
  • EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 15028/09

    SELAHATTIN DEMIRTAS v. TURKEY

    Moreover, there is nothing in the case file to indicate that the national authorities should have taken operational measures to protect the applicant on account of an intimidation campaign, even though he did not request such protection (compare with Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, §§ 73-74, 14 September 2010).

    Moreover, as the applicant submitted, on 19 January 2007, - that is, at the beginning of the same year - Hrant Dink was assassinated after an intimidation campaign carried out by ultra-nationalists (see Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, 14 September 2010).

    In general, are killings incited by publications only a fictional reality, a mere fantasy? Or are they, at least to a considerable extent, realistic? In the Turkish context, if an article could trigger the assassination of an author or an editor (compare Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, 14 September 2010), why, in principle, can a publication not trigger the assassination of someone against whom that publication is directed and who is singled out by the statement: "Turk, here is your enemy"?!.

  • EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 4149/04

    AKSU c. TURQUIE

    In the criminal proceedings against Hrant Dink (see Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, § 28, ECHR 2010... (extracts)), the Turkish Court of Cassation, sitting as a full criminal court, interpreted the term "Turkishness "as follows (Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulu, E.2006/9-169, K.2006/184, judgment of 11 July 2006):.
  • EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 13237/17

    Türkei wegen Haft für Journalisten verurteilt

    The Court refers first of all to its case-law to the effect that certain circumstances with a chilling effect on freedom of expression will confer on applicants who have yet to be convicted in a final judgment the status of victims of an interference with the freedom in question (see Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07 and 4 others, § 105, 14 September 2010; Altug Taner Akçam v. Turkey, no. 27520/07, §§ 70-75, 25 October 2011; and Nedim Sener v. Turkey, no. 38270/11, § 94, 8 July 2014).
  • EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10

    HUSEYNOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

    For a positive obligation to arise, it must be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of a particular individual or individuals from the criminal acts of a third party, and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 116, Reports 1998-VIII; Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, §§ 164-171, ECHR 2005-XI; and Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, §§ 64-75, 14 September 2010).

    2668/07 and 4 others, § 137, 14 September 2010.

  • EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 16538/17

    Türkei wegen Haft für Journalisten verurteilt

    The Court refers first of all to its case-law to the effect that certain circumstances with a chilling effect on freedom of expression will confer on applicants who have yet to be convicted in a final judgment the status of victims of an interference with the freedom in question (see Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07 and 4 others, § 105, 14 September 2010; Altug Taner Akçam v. Turkey, no. 27520/07, §§ 70-75, 25 October 2011; and Nedim Sener v. Turkey, no. 38270/11, § 94, 8 July 2014).
  • EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 71545/12

    L.E. c. GRÈCE

    L'obligation d'enquête ne dépend pas d'une plainte de la victime ou d'un proche: une fois que la question a été portée à leur attention, les autorités doivent agir (voir, mutatis mutandis, Dink c. Turquie, nos 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 et 7124/09, § 76, 14 septembre 2010 ; Paul et Audrey Edwards c. Royaume-Uni, no 46477/99, § 69, CEDH 2002-II).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08

    FÁBER v. HUNGARY

  • EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 29680/05

    DILIPAK c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 38270/11

    NEDIM SENER c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 27520/07

    ALTUG TANER AKCAM v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 29994/02

    DÖNER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 10.01.2019 - 65286/13

    KHADIJA ISMAYILOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  • EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 26005/08

    TATAR AND FABER v. HUNGARY

  • EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 53413/11

    SIK c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 1484/07

    KAKABADZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  • EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 21884/15

    CHOWDURY AND OTHERS v. GREECE

  • EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 34364/08

    DILEK ASLAN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 28255/07

    CUMHURIYET VAKFI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 7469/06

    CANGÖZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 3648/04

    CAVIT TINARLIOGLU c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 54204/08

    UZEYIR JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  • EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 4524/06

    YILDIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 17446/07

    SMOLORZ c. POLOGNE

  • EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 29483/09

    SEMIR GÜZEL v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 22261/10

    CEYLAN c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 33160/04

    SAHIN KUS c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 22519/06

    TÜZER c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 6810/09

    FATIH TA?ž c. TURQUIE (no. 5)

  • EGMR, 06.09.2011 - 54021/10

    CUMA CELIK c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR - 36944/07

    KABOGLU ET ORAN c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR - 72611/14 (anhängig)

    TAGIYEVA v. AZERBAIJAN

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht