Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
TARANENKO v. RUSSIA
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 10, Art. 10+11, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) Violation of Article 10+11 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) ... - juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Taranenko v. Russia
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Papierfundstellen
- NVwZ-RR 2015, 241
Wird zitiert von ... (37) Neu Zitiert selbst (12)
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95
SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05
It has been the Court's consistent approach to require very strong reasons for justifying restrictions on political debate, for broad restrictions imposed in individual cases would undoubtedly affect respect for the freedom of expression in general in the State concerned (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV). - EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 16354/06
Mouvement Raelien Suisse ./. Schweiz
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05
On the public forum doctrine see the opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque in Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland [GC], no. 16354/06, ECHR 2012. - EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95
FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05
It has been the Court's consistent approach to require very strong reasons for justifying restrictions on political debate, for broad restrictions imposed in individual cases would undoubtedly affect respect for the freedom of expression in general in the State concerned (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
- EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85
Oberschlick ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05
Moreover, 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; Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 45, ECHR 2001-III; and Women On Waves and Others v. Portugal, no. 31276/05, § 30, 3 February 2009). - EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 31684/05
BARRACO c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05
Thus, it should not be interpreted restrictively (see Djavit An v. Turkey, no. 20652/92, § 56, ECHR 2003-III, and Barraco v. France, no. 31684/05, § 41, 5 March 2009). - EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 20652/92
DJAVIT AN c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05
Thus, it should not be interpreted restrictively (see Djavit An v. Turkey, no. 20652/92, § 56, ECHR 2003-III, and Barraco v. France, no. 31684/05, § 41, 5 March 2009). - EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72
HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05
Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no "democratic society" (see 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, 29.03.2001 - 38432/97
THOMA v. LUXEMBOURG
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05
Moreover, 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; Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 45, ECHR 2001-III; and Women On Waves and Others v. Portugal, no. 31276/05, § 30, 3 February 2009). - EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06
PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05
Indeed, the protection of personal opinions, secured by Article 10 of the Convention, is one of the objectives of freedom of peaceful assembly as enshrined in Article 11 of the Convention (see Ezelin, cited above, § 37; Djavit An, cited above, § 39; Women On Waves and Others, cited above, § 28; Barraco, cited above, § 26; and Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06, § 52, ECHR 2011). - EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89
JERSILD v. DENMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05
Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no "democratic society" (see 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, 02.10.2001 - 29221/95
STANKOV AND THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 31451/03
AÇIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12
Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny
Thus, it should not be interpreted restrictively (see Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, § 91, ECHR 2015, and Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, § 65, 15 May 2014). - EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 37553/05
KUDREVICIUS ET AUTRES c. LITUANIE
Thus, it should not be interpreted restrictively (see Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, § 65, 15 May 2014). - EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12
Mariya Alekhina u.a. ./. Russland - "Pussy Riot"-Urteil verletzt Meinungsfreiheit
Furthermore, the Court must examine with particular scrutiny cases where sanctions imposed by the national authorities for non-violent conduct involve a prison sentence (see Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, § 87, 15 May 2014).
- EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 13918/06
SAVENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
In the case of Taranenko v. Russia (no. 19554/05, § 97, 15 May 2014) the Court found a violation of Article 10 interpreted in the light of Article 11 of the Convention on account of the lengthy period of detention pending trial and the long suspended prison sentence imposed on the applicant by the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow.In particular, that provision does not require the automatic creation of rights of entry to private property or even, necessarily, to all publicly owned property, such as, for instance, government offices and ministries (see Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, § 78, 15 May 2014).
- EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09
Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte
The authorities did not point to any aspects of his character or behaviour that would justify their finding that he presented such a risk (see Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717/05, § 139, 7 November 2017, and Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, § 54, 15 May 2014). - EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 11882/10
PENTIKÄINEN c. FINLANDE
The applicant's conviction amounted only to a formal finding of the offence committed by him and, as such, could hardly, if at all, have any "chilling effect" on persons taking part in protest actions (compare and contrast, mutatis mutandis, Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, § 95, 15 May 2014) or on the work of journalists at large (compare and contrast, Cumpana and Mazare v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 116, ECHR 2004-XI). - EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 4966/13
BARABANOV v. RUSSIA
The Court therefore deems it more appropriate to deal with this complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Kovyazin and Others v. Russia, nos. 13008/13 and 2 others, § 71, 17 September 2015; Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, § 46, 15 May 2014; and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, § 165, 31 May 2011).In the case of Taranenko v. Russia (no. 19554/05, §§ 82-91, 15 May 2014) the Court produced an analysis of its case-law and formulated the principle that participants in a demonstration which results in damage or other disorder, but who do not themselves commit any violent or otherwise reprehensible acts, cannot be prosecuted solely on the ground of their participation in the demonstration.
- EGMR, 06.04.2021 - 10783/14
HANDZHIYSKI v. BULGARIA
It is true that Article 10 of the Convention does not bestow freedom of forum for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression (see Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44306/98, § 47, ECHR 2003-VI; Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, § 78, 15 May 2014; and Mariya Alekhina and Others, cited above, § 213). - EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 75147/17
Katalonien-Streit: Puigdemonts Grundrechte wurden nicht verletzt
Dès lors, il ne doit pas faire l'objet d'une interprétation restrictive (Kudrevicius et autres c. Lituanie, précité, § 91 et Taranenko c. Russie, no 19554/05, § 65, 15 mai 2014). - EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 48694/10
ÇIÇEK ET AUTRES c. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 10613/10
EKREM CAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 60087/10
ÖGRÜ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 31.05.2022 - 208/18
U-Haft für türkischen Amnesty-Chef war rechtswidrig
- EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 18079/15
BUMBES v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 20347/07
EGITIM VE BILIM EMEKÇILERI SENDIKASI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 67200/12
BODALEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.05.2020 - 71314/13
CSISZER ET CSIBI c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10
KARASTELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 31475/10
ANNENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 70396/11
AKARSUBASI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 75734/12
RAZVOZZHAYEV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE AND UDALTSOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 56395/08
ÖZBENT ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 17888/12
SHVYDKA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 54611/11
SEDAT BAYRAM c. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 63845/09
ARZUMANYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 1879/10
MIKAYELYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 06.02.2018 - 2613/13
AKIMENKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 63686/13
STEPAN ZIMIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 6312/13
LUTSKEVICH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 3155/15
GASPAR c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 11.05.2023 - 31349/20
CHKHARTISHVILI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 22665/10
PASHINYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 17.03.2020 - 15669/13
KOSENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 71862/13
KRIVOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 10949/15
LABADZ v. POLAND
- EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 62630/13
POLIKHOVICH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 19327/13
KAVKAZSKIY v. RUSSIA