Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  COX v. TURKEY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  COX v. TURKEY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Violation of Art. 10;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• lehofer.at (Kurzinformation)

  Cox gegen Türkei

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 2933/03

  In doing so, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities, basing themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts, applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention (Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 73, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 2933/03

  The Court reiterates in this connection that, whereas the right of a foreigner to enter or remain in a country is not as such guaranteed by the Convention, immigration controls must be exercised consistently with Convention obligations (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, §§ 59-60, Series A no. 94).
• EGMR, 22.05.1990 - 12726/87

  AUTRONIC AG v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 2933/03

  This principle implies that the Contracting States may only restrict information received from abroad within the confines of the justifications set out in Article 10 § 2 (Autronic AG v. Switzerland, 22 May 1990, §§ 50 and 52, Series A no. 178).

 
• EGMR, 27.04.1995 - 15773/89

  PIERMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 2933/03

  For example, in the case of Piermont v. France the Court held that the expulsion and ban imposed on a German national's entry to French Polynesia, on account of that applicant's statements attacking French policies, amounted to an interference under Article 10 of the Convention (27 April 1995, §§ 51-53, Series A no. 314).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00

  ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 2933/03

  It is also to be reiterated at this juncture that such exceptions and restrictions call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court (see, inter alia, Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 42, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 2933/03

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that a norm cannot be regarded as a "law" within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his or her conduct; the individual must be able - if need be with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see, inter alia, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 41, ECHR 2007-XI).

• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 12174/22

  KIRKOROV v. LITHUANIA

  This principle implies that the Contracting States may only restrict information received from abroad within the confines of the justifications set out in Article 10 § 2 (see Cox v. Turkey, no. 2933/03, § 31, 20 May 2010).
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08

  Leugnung des Völkermords an den Armeniern kann von Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt sein

  Mention should also be made of the case of Cox v. Turkey (no. 2933/03, 20 May 2010), although it differs from the cases cited above.
• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 32401/10

  TAGANROG LRO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In so far as Mr Christensen's arrest and detention prevented him from continuing to hold services of worship in community with his fellow believers, it falls to the Court to verify whether that measure was designed to repress the exercise of his Convention rights and stifle the spreading of the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses (see Nolan and K. v. Russia, no. 2512/04, § 62, 12 February 2009, and Cox v. Turkey, no. 2933/03, § 28, 20 May 2010).
• EGMR - 30007/23 (anhängig)

  O.C. v. LATVIA

  Is the applicant within the respondent State's jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention (see Cox v. Turkey, no. 2933/03, 20 May 2010; compare with M.N. and Others v. Belgium (dec.) [GC], no. 3599/18, § 96-126, 5 May 2020)?.

  Has there been an interference with the applicant's freedom of expression, in particular her right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention (see, for comparison, Cox v. Turkey, no. 2933/03, 20 May 2010)?.