Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAYGILI AND FALAKAOGLU v. TURKEY

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02

  KULIS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 39457/03

  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).

  The punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to the discussion of matters of public interest, and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so (see, for example, Kulis v. Poland, no. 15601/02, § 38, 18 March 2008).

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 39457/03

  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, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 39457/03

  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, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93

  OZGUR GUNDEM c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 39457/03

  A description of the relevant domestic law at the material time can be found in Özgür Gündem v. Turkey (no. 23144/93, § 32, ECHR 2000-III), and Demirel and Ates v. Turkey (no. 2) (no. 31080/02, § 12, 29 November 2007).
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 28635/95

  IBRAHIM AKSOY c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 39457/03

  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, 29.03.2001 - 38432/97

  THOMA v. LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 39457/03

  A general requirement for journalists systematically and formally to distance themselves from the content of a quotation that might insult or provoke others or damage their reputation is not reconcilable with the press's role of providing information on current events, opinions and ideas (see, for example, Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 64, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 39457/03

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that it may be necessary to protect public servants from offensive, abusive and defamatory attacks which are calculated to affect them in the performance of their duties and to damage public confidence in them and the office they hold (see Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01

  TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 39457/03

  [1] See the judgment in the case of Tanıs and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, ECHR 2005-VII in which the Court found it established that both Serdar Tanıs and Ebubekir Deniz had disappeared after they attended the Silopi district gendarmerie command on 25 January 2001.
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 31080/02

  DEMIREL AND ATES v. TURKEY (N°2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 39457/03

  A description of the relevant domestic law at the material time can be found in Özgür Gündem v. Turkey (no. 23144/93, § 32, ECHR 2000-III), and Demirel and Ates v. Turkey (no. 2) (no. 31080/02, § 12, 29 November 2007).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 39457/03

  Freedom of the press affords the public one of the best means of discovering and forming an opinion of the ideas and attitudes of their political leaders (see Castells v. Spain, judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, § 43).
• EGMR, 18.07.2000 - 26680/95

  SENER v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 11461/03

  FALAKAOGLU ET SAYGILI c. TURQUIE

• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 6875/05

  SAYGILI AND KARATAS v. TURKEY

  In this respect, the State Security Court failed to weigh up the interest in protecting the identities of public officials - who, on account of their status, would have been well known in Istanbul, at least - as opposed to disclosing them for reasons of public interest (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 24122/94, § 40, 8 July 1999; Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, §§ 67-68, ECHR 2000-III; and Saygili and Falakaoglu v. Turkey, no. 39457/03, § 26, 21 October 2008).