Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TÜM HABER SEN AND ÇINAR v. TURKEY

  Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+11 MRK
  Violation of Art. 11 Not necessary to examine Art. 13+11 (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TÜM HABER SEN AND ÇINAR c. TURQUIE

  Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+11 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 11 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 13+11 (französisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 28602/95
• EGMR, 21.02.2006 - 28602/95

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 06.02.1976 - 5589/72

  SCHMIDT ET DAHLSTRÖM c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2006 - 28602/95

  Referring to National Union of Belgian Police v. Belgium (27 October 1975, § 39, Series A no. 19) and Schmidt and Dahlström v. Sweden (6 February 1976, § 34, Series A no. 21), they asserted that Article 11 of the Convention did not secure any particular treatment of trade-union members by the State or the right to conclude collective-bargaining agreements.
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 30668/96

  WILSON, NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2006 - 28602/95

  Article 11 does not, however, secure any particular treatment of trade unions or their members and leaves each State a free choice of the means to be used to secure the right to be heard (see National Union of Belgian Police, cited above, §§ 38-39; Swedish Engine Drivers' Union, cited above, §§ 39-40; and Wilson, National Union of Journalists and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 30668/96, 30671/96 and 30678/96, § 42, ECHR 2002-V).

• EGMR, 12.11.2008 - 34503/97

  Demir und Baykara ./. Türkei - Streikrecht für Beamte

  Referring to the judgment in Tüm Haber Sen and Çınar v. Turkey (no. 28602/95, §§ 36-39, ECHR 2006-...), the Chamber considered that, absent any concrete evidence to show that the activities of the trade union Tüm Bel Sen represented a threat to society or to the State, the respondent State, in refusing to recognise the legal personality of the applicants' union, had failed to comply with its obligation to secure the enjoyment of the rights enshrined in Article 11 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 31045/10

  THE NATIONAL UNION OF RAIL, MARITIME AND TRANSPORT WORKERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  It is certainly accepted by the Court, which has repeatedly had regard to the ECSR's interpretation of the Charter and its assessment of State compliance with its various provisions (e.g. Demir and Baykara; also Tüm Haber Sen and Çınar v. Turkey, no. 28602/95, § 39, ECHR 2006-II, a trade union case in which the Court described the ECSR as a "particularly qualified" body in this domain).
• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 10299/15

  MARIYA ALEKHINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  In the circumstances of the present case the Court considers that the treatment of which the applicants claimed to be victims has been sufficiently addressed in the above assessment that led to the finding of a violation of Article 11. It follows that there is no need for a separate examination of the same facts from the standpoint of Article 13 of the Convention (see Tüm Haber Sen and Çinar v. Turkey, no. 28602/95, §§ 41-42, ECHR 2006-II).
• EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 60477/12

  GROBELNY v. POLAND

  The Government referred to the cases of Çinar v. Turkey (dec.), no. 28602/95, 13 November 2013, Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, ECHR 2003-VIII. By way of justification for their submission regarding the effectiveness of a cassation appeal in cases relating to a disability pension, the Government invoked a Supreme Court judgment of 12 February 2009 (file no. III UK 71/08) and considered that any doubts on the part of the applicant, who had been aware of the existence of a cassation appeal, had not absolved him from the obligation to exhaust the domestic remedies; the Government referred in that respect to the cases of Epözdemir v. Turkey (dec.), no. 57039/00, 31 January 2002, and Pellegriti v. Italy (dec.), no. 77363/01, 26 May 2005).