Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PERADZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly) read in the light of Article 10 - (Art. 10) Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PERADZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 18 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 5631/16

  As regards the relevant principles under Article 10 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that this provision is applicable not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24).
• EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84

  MÜLLER AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 5631/16

  Being mindful of its supervisory role, the Court further subscribes to the domestic courts" finding that, in the circumstances of the present case, the interference in question pursued the legitimate aim of protecting morals and the rights of others (see paragraph 21 above and compare Müller and Others v. Switzerland, 24 May 1988, § 30, Series A no. 133, and, mutatis mutandis, Perrin v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 5446/03, ECHR 2005-XI).
• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 10613/10

  EKREM CAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 5631/16

  In such circumstances, Article 11 is to be regarded as a lex specialis and it is unnecessary to take the complaint under Article 10 into consideration separately (compare Kemal Çetin v. Turkey, no. 3704/13, § 26, 26 May 2020, and Ekrem Can and Others v. Turkey, no. 10613/10, § 68, 8 March 2022).
• EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 5446/03

  PERRIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 5631/16

  Being mindful of its supervisory role, the Court further subscribes to the domestic courts" finding that, in the circumstances of the present case, the interference in question pursued the legitimate aim of protecting morals and the rights of others (see paragraph 21 above and compare Müller and Others v. Switzerland, 24 May 1988, § 30, Series A no. 133, and, mutatis mutandis, Perrin v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 5446/03, ECHR 2005-XI).
• EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 3704/13

  KEMAL ÇETIN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 5631/16

  In such circumstances, Article 11 is to be regarded as a lex specialis and it is unnecessary to take the complaint under Article 10 into consideration separately (compare Kemal Çetin v. Turkey, no. 3704/13, § 26, 26 May 2020, and Ekrem Can and Others v. Turkey, no. 10613/10, § 68, 8 March 2022).

• EGMR, 07.05.2024 - 49014/16

  A.K. v. RUSSIA

  In the absence of any detailed analysis of the domestic authorities of the matter, including the assessment of compatibility of the applicant's conduct with the ethical standards currently held in the country (see mutatis mutandis Peradze and Others v. Georgia, no. 5631/16, § 44, 15 December 2022), the Court is unable to deduce how this gesture used in a private setting outside of school activities had warranted alone the gravity of the sanction imposed.