Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SENER v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 18, Art. 41, Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 18 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• IRIS Merlin (Kurzinformation)

  Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung im Fall Sener gegen Türkei.

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2000 - 26680/95

  A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in the Sürek (No. 1) v. Turkey judgment ([GC], no. 26682/95, §§ 23-36, ECHR 1999-IV).

  The Court, like the Commission, finds that since the applicant's conviction was based on section 8 of the 1991 Act the resultant interference with her freedom of expression could be regarded as "prescribed by law", all the more as the applicant has not disputed this (see, in this connection, Sürek (No. 1) v. Turkey [GC], no. 26682/95, § 48, ECHR 1999-IV).

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94

  CEYLAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2000 - 26680/95

  The Court notes in this connection that the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are also factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of the interference (see the Ceylan v. Turkey judgment [GC], no. 23556/94, § 49, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 25067/94

  ERDOGDU ET INCE c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2000 - 26680/95

  At the same time, where such views cannot be so categorised, Contracting States cannot, with reference to the protection of territorial integrity or national security or the prevention of crime or disorder, restrict the right of the public to be informed of them by bringing the weight of the criminal law to bear on the media (see the ErdoÄ?du and Ä°nce v. Turkey [GC], no. 25067/94, § 54, ECHR 1999-IV).

• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 15256/05

  TCHANKOTADZE v. GEORGIA

  Here are the judgments (in chronological order) in which this pattern has been employed: Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey (24 April 1998, Reports 1998-II) - violations of Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; Kurt v. Turkey (25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III) - violations of Articles 3, 5 and 13, as well as a finding "that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under [former] Article 25 § 1" (as it was worded at that time); Tekin v. Turkey (9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV) - violations of Articles 3 and 13; Ergi v. Turkey (28 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV) - violations of Articles 2 and 13 and (former) Article 25 § 1 (as it was worded at that time); Sener v. Turkey (no. 26680/95, 18 July 2000) - violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 10; Tanli v. Turkey (no. 26129/95, ECHR 2001-III) - violations of Articles 2 (both substantive and procedural) and 13; Tepe v. Turkey (no. 27244/95, 9 May 2003) - violations of Articles 2 (procedural) and 13; Yöyler v. Turkey (no. 26973/95, 24 July 2003) - violation of Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; Tekdag v. Turkey (no. 27699/95, 15 January 2004) - violations of Article 2 (procedural) and 13, as well as a finding that the respondent Government had "failed to fulfil their obligation under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention"; Ipek v. Turkey (no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004-II) - violations of Articles 2 (both substantive and procedural), 3, 5 and 13 (the latter in conjunction with Articles 2, 3 and 5) of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as well as a finding that the respondent Government had "failed to fulfil their obligation under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention"; Altun v. Turkey (no. 24561/94, 1 June 2004) - violations of Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; Sirin Yilmaz v. Turkey (no. 35875/97, 29 July 2004) - violations of Article 2 (procedural) and 13; Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey (no. 32446/96, 2 November 2004) - violations of Article 3, Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 and Article 13; Dicle v. Turkey (no. 34685/97, 10 November 2004) - violations of Article 10 and Article 6 § 1; Mentese and Others v. Turkey (no. 36217/97, 18 January 2005) - violations of Articles 2 (procedural) and 13; Agtas and Others v. Turkey (no. 33240/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Artun and Others v. Turkey (no. 33239/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Keser and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33238/96 and 32965/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Kumru Yilmaz and Others v. Turkey (no. 36211/97, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Nesibe Haran v. Turkey (no. 28299/95, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 2 (procedural); Öztoprak and Others v. Turkey (no. 33247/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Sayli v. Turkey (no. 33243/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Aksakal v. Turkey (no. 37850/97, §§ 43-44, 15 February 2007) - a violation of Article 13; Khodorkovskiy (cited above) - violations of Article 3 and Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4; OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos (cited above) - violations of Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev (cited above) - violations of Article 3, Article 5 §§ 3 and 4, Article 6 § 1 (in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) and (d)) and Article 8 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as well as a finding that the authorities had failed "to respect their obligation under Article 34 of the Convention".
• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 2840/10

  OOO MEMO v. RUSSIA

  To prevent abuse of powers and corruption of public office in a democratic system, a public authority's activities of all kinds must be subject to the close scrutiny not only of the legislative and judicial authorities but also of public opinion (see Sener v. Turkey, no. 26680/95, § 40, 18 July 2000).
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 28635/95

  IBRAHIM AKSOY c. TURQUIE

  A cet égard, elle rappelle tout d'abord les principes fondamentaux qui se dégagent de sa jurisprudence en la matière (voir, entres autres, les arrêts Castells c. Espagne du 23 avril 1992, série A n° 236, § 46, p. 23 ; Fressoz et Roire c. France [GC], n° 29183/95, CEDH 1999-I, 45, Öztürk c. Turquie [GC], n° 22479/93, CEDH 1999-VI, § 64, Nilsen et Johnsen c. Norvège [GC], n° 23118/93, CEDH 1999-VIII, § 43 ; News Verlags GmbH & CoKG c. Autriche, n° 31457/96, § 52, CEDH 2000 et, en dernier lieu, ErdoÄ?du c. Turquie, n° 25723/94, § 52, CEDH 2000 et Sener c. Turquie, n° 26680/95, § 39, CEDH 2000).

 
• EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 32985/96

  ALTAN v. TURKEY

  23927/94 and 24277/94, 8 July 1999; Sürek v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 24122/94, 8 July 1999; Sürek v. Turkey (no. 4) [GC], no. 24762/94, 8 July 1999; Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, ECHR 1999-VI; Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, ECHR 2000-III; ErdoÄ?du v. Turkey, no. 25723/94, ECHR 2000-VI; Sener v. Turkey, no. 26680/95, 18 July 2000; and Ä°brahim Aksoy v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 24.04.2018 - 51511/08

  FATIH TAS v. TURKEY (No. 4)

  As regards the necessity of the interference in a democratic society, the Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, for example, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, §§ 58-59, ECHR 1999-IV; Sener v. Turkey, no. 26680/95, §§ 39-43, 18 July 2000; and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 14526/07

  ÜRPER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court has stated on several occasions that, although the press must not overstep the bounds required, for example, to provide protection against threats of violence, disorder or crime, its duty is nevertheless to impart - in a manner consistent with its obligations and responsibilities - information and ideas on all matters of public interest, including divisive ones (see, for example, Sener v. Turkey, no. 26680/95, § 41, 18 July 2000; Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 59, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 39457/03

  SAYGILI AND FALAKAOGLU v. TURKEY

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, the following judgments: Sener v. Turkey, no. 26680/95, §§ 39-43, 18 July 2000, Ä°brahim Aksoy v. Turkey, nos. 28635/95, 30171/96 and 34535/97, §§ 51-53, 10 October 2000; Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 26, §§ 41-42, Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV, and Kulis v. Poland, no. 15601/02, §§ 36-41, 18 March 2008).
• EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 37721/97

  ERKANLI c. TURQUIE

  Voir Incal c. Turquie du 9 juin 1998, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-IV ; Arslan c. Turquie [GC], no 23462/94 ; Baskaya et OkçuoÄ?lu c. Turquie [GC], nos 23536/94 et 24408/94, CEDH 1999-IV ; Ceylan c. Turquie [GC], no 23556/94, CEDH 1999-IV ; ErdoÄ?du et Ä°nce c. Turquie [GC], nos 25067/94 et 25068/94, CEDH 1999-IV ; Gerger c. Turquie [GC], no 24919/94 ; Karatas c. Turquie [GC], no 23168/94, CEDH 1999-IV ; OkçuoÄ?lu c. Turquie [GC], no 24246/94 ; Polat c. Turquie [GC], no 23500/94 ; Sürek et Özdemir c. Turquie [GC], nos 23927/94 et 24277/94 ; Sürek c. Turquie (no 2) [GC], no 24122/94 ; Sürek c. Turquie (no 4) [GC], no 24762/94 ; Öztürk c. Turquie [GC], no 22479/93, CEDH 1999-VI ; Özgür Gündem c. Turquie, no 23144/93, CEDH 2000-III ; ErdoÄ?du c. Turquie, no 25723/94, CEDH 2000-VI ; Sener c. Turquie, no 26680/95 et Ä°brahim Aksoy c. Turquie, nos 28635/95, 30171/96 et 34535/97.
• EGMR, 26.11.2002 - 27209/95

  ÖZKAN KILIC c. TURQUIE

  Voir Incal c. Turquie du 9 juin 1998, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-IV ; Arslan c. Turquie [GC], n° 23462/94 ; Baskaya et OkçuoÄ?lu c. Turquie [GC], nos 23536/94 et 24408/94, CEDH 1999-IV ; Ceylan c. Turquie [GC], n° 23556/94, CEDH 1999-IV ; ErdoÄ?du et Ä°nce c. Turquie [GC], nos 25067/94 et 25068/94, CEDH 1999-IV ; Gerger c. Turquie [GC], n° 24919/94 ; Karatas c. Turquie [GC], n° 23168/94, CEDH 1999-IV ; OkçuoÄ?lu c. Turquie [GC], n° 24246/94 ; Polat c. Turquie [GC], n° 23500/94 ; Sürek et Özdemir c. Turquie [GC], nos 23927/94 et 24277/94 ; Sürek c. Turquie (n° 2) [GC], n° 24122/94 ; Sürek c. Turquie (n° 4) [GC], n° 24762/94 ; Öztürk c. Turquie [GC], n° 22479/93, CEDH 1999-VI ; Özgür Gündem c. Turquie, n° 23144/93, CEDH 2000-III ; ErdoÄ?du c. Turquie, n° 25723/94, CEDH 2000-VI ; Sener c. Turquie, n° 26680/95 et Ä°brahim Aksoy c. Turquie, nos 28635/95, 30171/96 et 34535/97.
• EGMR, 03.09.2002 - 27307/95

  MEHMET BAYRAK c. TURQUIE

  Voir Incal c. Turquie du 9 juin 1998, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-IV ; Arslan c. Turquie [GC], n° 23462/94 ; Baskaya et OkçuoÄ?lu c. Turquie [GC], nos 23536/94 et 24408/94, CEDH 1999-IV ; Ceylan c. Turquie [GC], n° 23556/94, CEDH 1999-IV ; ErdoÄ?du et Ä°nce c. Turquie [GC], nos 25067/94 et 25068/94, CEDH 1999-IV ; Gerger c. Turquie [GC], n° 24919/94 ; Karatas c. Turquie [GC], n° 23168/94, CEDH 1999-IV ; OkçuoÄ?lu c. Turquie [GC], n° 24246/94 ; Polat c. Turquie [GC], n° 23500/94 ; Sürek et Özdemir c. Turquie [GC], nos 23927/94 et 24277/94 ; Sürek c. Turquie (n° 2) [GC], n° 24122/94 ; Sürek c. Turquie (n° 4) [GC], n° 24762/94 ; Öztürk c. Turquie [GC], n° 22479/93, CEDH 1999-VI ; Özgür Gündem c. Turquie, n° 23144/93, CEDH 2000-III ; ErdoÄ?du c. Turquie, n° 25723/94, CEDH 2000-VI ; Sener c. Turquie, n° 26680/95 et Ä°brahim Aksoy c. Turquie, nos 28635/95, 30171/96 et 34535/97.
• EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 26976/95

  SUREK c. TURQUIE (N° 5)
• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 35076/97

  ALI EROL c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 51508/08

  TAS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 24.04.2018 - 45281/08

  FATIH TAS v. TURKEY (No. 3)
• EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 38991/02

  SAYGILI AND FALAKAOGLU v. TURKEY (No. 2)
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 11976/03

  DEMIREL AND ATES (NO. 3) v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 33667/05

  SAYGILI AND BILGIÇ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 37685/02

  ÜSTÜN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 56827/00

  DUZGOREN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 70335/01

  YURDATAPAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 50934/99

  KOÇ AND TAMBAS v. TURKEY