Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OZGUR GUNDEM c. TURQUIE

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 14, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'Art. 10 Non-violation de l'Art. 14 Radiation partielle du rôle Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OZGUR GUNDEM v. TURKEY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 14, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 No violation of Art. 14 Partly struck out of the list Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
• IRIS Merlin (Kurzinformation)

  Meinungs- und Informationsfreiheit

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 20.10.1995 - 23144/93
• EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93

Wird zitiert von ... (45)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23462/94

  ARSLAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93

  Having regard to other awards made in cases against Turkey (see, for example, Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 50, ECHR 1999-IV, and Arslan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23462/94, § 61, 8 July 1999, unreported) and ruling on an equitable basis, it awards the applicants GBP 5, 000 each.

  The Court cannot therefore allow them." (Arslan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23462/94, 8 July 1999, unreported).

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23168/94

  KARATAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93

  Consequently, it cannot make an award under this head (see Rule 60 § 2 of the Rules of Court)." (Karatas v. Turkey [GC], no. 23168/94, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 23885/94

  FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY PARTY (ÖZDEP) v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93

  Consequently, it is unable to accept it (Rule 60 § 2 of the Rules of Court; see, mutatis mutandis, the Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey judgment cited above, p. 1261, § 67)." (Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey [GC], no. 23885/94, ECHR 1999-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87

  OTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93

  As stated in the Commission's report, the necessity for any restriction in the exercise of freedom of expression must be convincingly established (see, among other authorities, the Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria judgment of 20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A, p. 19, § 50).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10454/83

  GASKIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93

  It has found that such obligations may arise under Article 8 (see, amongst others, the Gaskin v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 160, pp. 17-20, §§ 42-49) and Article 11 (see the Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v. Austria judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 139, p. 12, § 32).
• EGMR, 21.06.1988 - 10126/82

  Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93

  It has found that such obligations may arise under Article 8 (see, amongst others, the Gaskin v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 160, pp. 17-20, §§ 42-49) and Article 11 (see the Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v. Austria judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 139, p. 12, § 32).
• EGMR, 17.10.1986 - 9532/81

  REES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93

  Nor must such an obligation be interpreted in such a way as to impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities (see, among other authorities, the Rees v. the United Kingdom judgment of 17 October 1986, Series A no. 106, p. 15, § 37, and the Osman v. the United Kingdom judgment cited above, pp. 3159-60, § 116).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93

  Obligations to take steps to undertake effective investigations have also been found to accrue in the context of Article 2 (see, for example, the McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 49, § 161) and Article 3 (see the Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3290, § 102), while a positive obligation to take steps to protect life may also exist under Article 2 (see the Osman v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, pp. 3159-61, §§ 115-17).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94

  CEYLAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93

  Having regard to other awards made in cases against Turkey (see, for example, Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 50, ECHR 1999-IV, and Arslan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23462/94, § 61, 8 July 1999, unreported) and ruling on an equitable basis, it awards the applicants GBP 5, 000 each.
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93

  The Court recalls that it has already considered this point in previous judgments (see, for example, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, §§ 45-46, ECHR 1999-IV and twelve other freedom of expression cases concerning Turkey) and found that measures imposed pursuant to the 1991 Act could be regarded as "prescribed by law".
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 27510/08

  Leugnung des Völkermords an Armeniern von Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt

  Another factor has been whether the statements, fairly construed and seen in their immediate or wider context, could be seen as a direct or indirect call for violence or as a justification of violence, hatred or intolerance (see, among other authorities, Incal v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 50, Reports 1998-IV; Sürek (no. 1), cited above, § 62; Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 64, ECHR 2000-III; Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, §§ 48 and 51, ECHR 2003-XI; Soulas and Others, cited above, §§ 39-41 and 43; Balsyte-Lideikiene, cited above, §§ 79-80; Féret, cited above, §§ 69-73 and 78; Hizb ut-Tahrir and Others, cited above, § 73; Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov, cited above, §§ 107-12; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, §§ 52 and 56-58, 24 July 2012; and Vona, cited above, §§ 64-67).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 13936/02

  MANOLE ET AUTRES c. MOLDOVA

  L'exercice réel et effectif de la liberté d'expression ne dépend pas simplement du devoir de l'Etat de s'abstenir de toute ingérence, mais peut exiger qu'il prenne, en droit ou en pratique, des mesures positives de protection (voir par exemple Özgür Gündem c. Turquie, no 23144/93, §§ 42-46, CEDH 2000-III, Fuentes Bobo c. Espagne, no 39293/98, § 38, 29 février 2000, et Appleby et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 44306/98, §§ 39-40, CEDH 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  In certain cases the State has a positive obligation to protect the right to freedom of expression, even against interference by private persons (see Fuentes Bobo, cited above, § 38; Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, §§ 42-46, ECHR 2000-III; and Dink, cited above, § 106).

 
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12

  Mariya Alekhina u.a. ./. Russland - "Pussy Riot"-Urteil verletzt Meinungsfreiheit

  Another factor has been whether the statements, fairly construed and seen in their immediate or wider context, could be seen as a direct or indirect call for violence or as a justification of violence, hatred or intolerance (see, among other authorities, Incal v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 50, Reports 1998-IV; Sürek (no. 1), cited above, § 62; Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 64, ECHR 2000-III; Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, §§ 48 and 51, ECHR 2003-XI; Soulas and Others, cited above, §§ 39-41 and 43; Balsyte-Lideikiene, cited above, §§ 79-80; Féret, cited above, §§ 69-73 and 78; Hizb ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, § 73, 12 June 2012; Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov, cited above, §§ 107-12; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, §§ 52 and 56-58, 24 July 2012; and Vona v. Hungary, no. 35943/10, §§ 64-67, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 36925/10

  Gefängnisse in Bulgarien: Unwürdige Zustände

  Moreover, since the issue raised by Mr Simeonov - the conditions in Burgas Prison - was also raised by Mr Tsekov and Mr Zlatev, and since Mr Simeonov is no longer incarcerated, respect for human rights does not require the Court to continue examining his application by reference to Article 37 § 1 in fine (see, mutatis mutandis, Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, §§ 34 and 36, ECHR 2000-III; Stec and Others, cited above, § 32; Ivanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 46336/99, § 32, 24 November 2005; and Shesti Mai Engineering OOD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 17854/04, § 62, 20 September 2011).
• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10

  HUSEYNOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court considers that the present case should also be distinguished from the case of Özgür Gündem where the domestic authorities ‒ which were aware of a series of violent actions against a newspaper and people associated with it ‒ did not take any action to protect the newspaper and its journalists (see Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 44, ECHR 2000-III).

  [6] See Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, 16 March 2000, § 43, ECHR 2000-III; Dink v. Turkey, cited above, § 106; and Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, no. 39293/98, § 38, 29 February 2000.

• EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 931/13

  Keine Verletzung des Rechts auf Meinungsäußerung durch Verbot der …

  I agree with Judge Nicolaou's view, as expressed in his concurring opinion, that they were not sanctions as such (contrast and compare with Weber v. Switzerland, 22 May 1990, § 33, Series A no. 177; Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 66, ECHR 1999-VI; and Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 69, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 06.04.2021 - 10783/14

  HANDZHIYSKI v. BULGARIA

  For their part, the administrative costs (in this case, postage and office supplies - items (b) and (c) of the applicant's claim) incurred by the applicant's representatives in connection with the proceedings before the Court are in principle recoverable under Article 41 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (Article 50), 6 November 1980, § 40, Series A no. 38; Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (Article 50), 24 February 1983, § 25, Series A no. 59; Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, §§ 85-87, ECHR 2000-III; Ipek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, § 242 in fine, ECHR 2004-II (extracts); and Antonov v. Bulgaria, no. 58364/10, §§ 72 and 76, 28 May 2020).
• EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 54204/08

  UZEYIR JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Relying on the Court's judgment in the case of Özgür Gündem v. Turkey (no. 23144/93, 16 March 2000), the applicant also argued that the Government had failed to comply with their positive obligations under Article 10 of the Convention.

  The Court also reiterates that the key importance of freedom of expression as one of the preconditions for a functioning democracy is such that the genuine, effective exercise of this freedom is not dependent merely on the State's duty not to interfere, but may call for positive measures of protection, even in the sphere of relations between individuals (see Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 43, ECHR 2000-III).

• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 1562/10

  REMUSZKO v. POLAND

  Positive measures of protection may be required especially vis-à-vis journalists and newspapers (see Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, §§ 42-46, ECHR 2000-III, where the Turkish State was found to be under a positive obligation to take investigative and protective measures where a pro-PKK newspaper and its journalists and staff had been the victims of a campaign of violence and intimidation.
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 8029/07

  GÜN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 5869/17

  ERKIZIA ALMANDOZ c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 16354/06

  Mouvement Raelien Suisse ./. Schweiz
• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 8257/13

  Blasphemie-Urteil gegen polnische Sängerin nicht rechtens
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 48939/99

  ÖNERYILDIZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 10851/13

  KIRÁLY AND DÖMÖTÖR v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 72611/14

  TAGIYEVA v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 17854/04

  SHESTI MAI ENGINEERING OOD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 25329/03

  FRASILA AND CIOCÎRLAN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 10.01.2019 - 65286/13

  KHADIJA ISMAYILOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 28635/95

  IBRAHIM AKSOY c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 36944/07

  KABOGLU ET ORAN c. TURQUIE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 47833/20

  LENIS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 6875/05

  SAYGILI AND KARATAS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 41964/98

  CENNET AYHAN AND MEHMET SALIH AYHAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.10.2002 - 24914/94

  AYSE ÖZTÜRK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 14526/07

  ÜRPER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 39457/03

  SAYGILI AND FALAKAOGLU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 24.11.2005 - 46336/99

  IVANOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 22.02.2005 - 47148/99

  NOVOSSELETSKI c. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 226/18 (anhängig)

  YEVSTIFEYEV v. RUSSIA and 16 other applications
• EGMR, 16.03.2023 - 63882/14

  LAZEBNYK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 38991/02

  SAYGILI AND FALAKAOGLU v. TURKEY (No. 2)
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 24748/03

  IMZA c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 11976/03

  DEMIREL AND ATES (NO. 3) v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.03.2001 - 24737/94

  SATIK, CAMLI, SATIK ET MARASLI contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR - 28523/19 (anhängig)

  POTARSKA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 17503/19 (anhängig)

  TKACH AND LAZAREVYCH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 42203/21 (anhängig)

  A.A. v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications
• EGMR - 4106/24 (anhängig)

  SADAGHASHVILI AND GELITASHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 3503/10

  HAJI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 39735/03

  TANRIKULU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 48564/11

  YUFRYAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 42599/08

  GÜDENOGLU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 2318/09

  ÖLMEZ AND TURGAY v. TURKEY