Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YILMAZ YILDIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly) Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Yilmaz Yildiz and Others v. Turkey

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  YILDIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

  ROTARU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 4524/06

  For domestic law to meet these requirements, it must afford adequate legal protection against arbitrariness and accordingly indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise (see Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, §§ 66-68, Series A no. 82, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 4524/06

  For domestic law to meet these requirements, it must afford adequate legal protection against arbitrariness and accordingly indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise (see Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, §§ 66-68, Series A no. 82, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 4524/06

  The Court points out that the expression "prescribed by law" 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 Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, § 27).

 
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 2668/07

  DINK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 4524/06

  2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, § 116, 14 September 2010).
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 25691/04

  BUKTA ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 4524/06

  As a general principle, the Court reiterates that any demonstration in a public place inevitably causes a certain level of disruption to ordinary life and that it is important for public authorities to show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (see Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 37, ECHR 2007-III).
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 4524/06

  However, in the light of its examination of these matters below from the point of view of the "necessity" of the measure (see paragraphs 43-49), the Court considers that it is not required to reach a final conclusion on the lawfulness issue (see Association Ekin c. France, no 39288/98, § 46, CEDH 2001-VIII, and Dink v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 74552/01

  OYA ATAMAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 4524/06

  The Government noted that in accordance with the case-law of the Court in the case of Oya Ataman v. Turkey, (no. 74552/01, § 35, ECHR 2006-XIII), local authorities have a duty to take appropriate measures with respect to lawful demonstrations in order to ensure their peaceful conduct and public safety.
• EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 20652/92

  DJAVIT AN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 4524/06

  As such, this right covers both private meetings and meetings in public thoroughfares, as well as static meetings and public processions; in addition, it can be exercised by individuals and those organising the assembly (see Djavit An v. Turkey, no. 20652/92, § 56, ECHR 2003-III).
• EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 10346/05

  EVA MOLNÁR c. HONGRIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 4524/06

  The Court notes that restrictions on freedom of assembly in public places may serve to protect the rights of others with a view to preventing disorder (see Éva Molnár v. Hungary, no. 10346/05, § 34, 7 October 2008).
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 34202/06

  BERLADIR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 4524/06

  The Court notes that the Government have merely referred to the level of the fines imposed on the applicants, without explaining why they consider that the applicants have suffered no "significant disadvantage" (see Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, §§ 34-35, 10 July 2012, and also Giuran v. Romania, no. 24360/04, §§ 21-23, ECHR 2011 (extracts) and Van Velden v. the Netherlands, no. 30666/08, §§ 37-39, 19 July 2011).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 24360/04

  GIURAN v. ROMANIA

• EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 70396/11

  AKARSUBASI c. TURQUIE

  Les dispositions pertinentes en l'espèce de la loi no 5442 relative à l'ordre dans les villes (il idaresi kurulu) et de la circulaire no 2004/100 du ministère de l'Intérieur figurent aux paragraphes 18 à 20 de l'arrêt Yilmaz Yildiz et autres c. Turquie, no 4524/06, 14 octobre 2014.

  La Cour estime que de sérieux doutes se posent quant à la prévisibilité de la loi au sens de l'article 11 § 2 de la Convention (voir dans le même sens, Yilmaz Yildiz et autres c. Turquie, no 4524/06, § 39, 14 octobre 2014).

  En suivant l'exemple de quelques précédents récents (Yilmaz Yildiz et autres c. Turquie, no 4524/06, § 47, 14 octobre 2014, et Özbent et autres c. Turquie, nos 56395/08 et 58241/08, § 47, 9 juin 2015), elle vise, plus particulièrement, le jugement du tribunal correctionnel ayant rejeté le recours contre l'amende.

• EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 56395/08

  ÖZBENT ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Les dispositions pertinentes en l'espèce de la loi no 5442 relative à la réglementation des villes (il idaresi kurulu) ainsi que la circulaire no 2004/100 du ministère de l'Intérieur figurent respectivement aux paragraphes 18-19 et 20 de l'arrêt Yilmaz Yildiz et autres c. Turquie, no 4524/06, 14 octobre 2014.

  La Cour estime que de sérieux doutes se posent quant à la prévisibilité de la loi au sens de l'article 11 § 2 de la Convention (voir dans le même sens, Yilmaz Yildiz et autres c. Turquie, no 4524/06, § 39, 14 octobre 2014).

  Elle considère qu'il y a également lieu d'octroyer aux requérants, séparément, la somme de 1 500 EUR pour dommage moral (Yilmaz Yildiz et autres c. Turquie, no 4524/06, § 54, 14 octobre 2014).

• EGMR, 02.04.2024 - 9987/14

  BORONENKOV v. UKRAINE

  It is also notable that in the present case the aim of the demonstration was rather vague (see § 5 above) and has not been clarified by the applicant at any point in the domestic proceedings or before the Court (contrast with cases in which the applicants were sanctioned despite the public importance of the cause they specifically sought to promote: Ögrü and Others, cited above, §§ 7, 11, 15, 19, 23, 26, 30, 34, 38, Yilmaz Yildiz and Others v. Turkey, no. 4524/06, §§ 7 and 9, 14 October 2014, and Akarsubasi and Alçiçek v. Turkey, no. 19620/12, § 6, 23 January 2018).

 
• EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 73708/11

  ORMAN ET AUTRES c. TÜRKIYE

  Par conséquent, l'imposition d'une sanction pour un acte aussi répréhensible peut être considérée comme compatible avec les garanties de l'article 11 de la Convention dans certaines circonstances (Yilmaz Yildiz et autres c. Turquie, no 4524/06, § 42, 14 octobre 2014).
• EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 41226/09

  Türkei verurteilt: Nicht jeder ist ein Terrorist

  Thus, the Court has found in a number of cases that penalties imposed for taking part in a rally amounted to an interference with the right to freedom of assembly (see, for example, Ezelin, cited above, § 41; Osmani and Others v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (dec.), no. 50841/99, ECHR 2001-X; Mkrtchyan v. Armenia, no. 6562/03, § 37, 11 January 2007; Galstyan, cited above, § 101; Ashughyan v. Armenia, no. 33268/03, § 77, 17 July 2008; Sergey Kuznetsov v. Russia, no. 10877/04, § 36, 23 October 2008; Uzunget and Others v. Turkey, no. 21831/03, § 43, 13 October 2009; and Yilmaz Yildiz and Others v. Turkey, no. 4524/06, § 34, 14 October 2014).
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 17526/10

  GÜLCÜ v. TURKEY

  Thus, the Court has considered in a number of cases that penalties imposed for taking part in a rally amounted to an interference with the right to freedom of assembly (see, for example, Ezelin, cited above, § 41; Osmani and Others v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (dec.), no. 50841/99, ECHR 2001-X; Mkrtchyan v. Armenia, no. 6562/03, § 37, 11 January 2007; Galstyan, cited above, § 101; Ashughyan v Armenia, no. 33268/03, § 77, 17 July 2008; Sergey Kuznetsov v. Russia, no. 10877/04, § 36, 23 October 2008; Uzunget and Others v. Turkey, no. 21831/03, § 43, 13 October 2009; and Yilmaz Yildiz and Others v. Turkey, no. 4524/06, § 34, 14 October 2014).
• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 59914/16

  NALBANT AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  In those circumstances, and bearing in mind the terms of Rule 60 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court, the Court makes no award in respect of costs and expenses (see, inter alia, Hasan Döner v. Turkey, no. 53546/99, §§ 59-61, 20 November 2007, and Yilmaz Yildiz and Others v. Turkey, no. 4524/06, § 57, 14 October 2014).
• EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 25200/11

  DICKINSON c. TURQUIE

  Par ailleurs, se référant aux arrêts Ezelin c. France (26 avril 1991, série A no 202), Oya Ataman c. Turquie (no 74552/01, CEDH 2006-XIV), Gün et autres c. Turquie (no 8029/07, 18 juin 2013) et Yilmaz Yildiz et autres c. Turquie (no 4524/06, 14 octobre 2014) de la Cour et à un arrêt de la Cour constitutionnelle (Affaire Osman Erbil, recours no 2013/2394, 25 mars 2015), le requérant considère que, même s'il a été sursis au prononcé du jugement de sa condamnation, la menace de sanction pesant contre lui au cours de la période de sursis était susceptible de créer un effet dissuasif à son endroit.
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 60087/10

  ÖGRÜ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Le droit et la pratique internes pertinents sont exposés dans les arrêts Yilmaz Yildiz et autres c. Turquie, (no 4524/06, §§ 17-22, 14 octobre 2014) et Akarsubasi c. Turquie (no 70396/11, §§ 14-26, 21 juillet 2015).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 26638/07

  KONUK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Le droit et la pratique internes pertinents sont exposés dans les arrêts Yilmaz Yildiz et autres c. Turquie, (no 4524/06, §§ 17-22, 14 octobre 2014), Gün et autres c. Turquie, (no 8029/07, §§ 36-42, 18 juin 2013), et Akarsubasi c. Turquie (no 70396/11, §§ 14-26, 21 juillet 2015).
• EGMR, 03.09.2020 - 11157/11

  YORDANOVI c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 19631/12

  ÖGRÜ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 9802/07

  BOZDUMAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 15520/06

  ERDOGAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 57316/10

  IMRET v. TURKEY (No. 2)