Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MURAT VURAL v. TURKEY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-general (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Vote) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary ...

Besprechungen u.ä.

• verfassungsblog.de (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  Strafen für Atatürk-Beleidigungen: Straßburg, wie hältst du’s mit der Meinungsfreiheit?

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Murat Vural v. Turkey

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9540/07

  (See Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-IV, Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 66, ECHR 1999-V, Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 92, ECHR 2009; citing: Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 42, Series A no. 103; Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 43, Series A no. 236; Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 63, Series A no. 239; Wingrove, cited above, § 58; and Monnat v. Switzerland, no. 73604/01, § 58, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87

  OTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9540/07

  The Court accepted in Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria (20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A) that protection against indignation caused by "offensive" speech was a legitimate aim within the concept of the rights of others, at least where the right was freedom of religion.
• EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 65831/01

  Schutz der Infragestellung der von den Nazis am jüdischen Volk begangenen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9540/07

  A categorical approach is used against applicants, but not against States, in the Article 17 context (see Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX).

 
• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9540/07

  In such a case, the Court's focus is not on the circumstances of the individual applicant, although he must be affected by the legislation in order to claim to be a victim of its application; it is, instead, primarily on the question whether the legislature itself acted within its margin of appreciation and satisfied the requirements of necessity and proportionality when imposing the prohibition or restriction in question." (Concurring opinion of Judge Bratza in Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9540/07

  (See Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-IV, Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 66, ECHR 1999-V, Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 92, ECHR 2009; citing: Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 42, Series A no. 103; Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 43, Series A no. 236; Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 63, Series A no. 239; Wingrove, cited above, § 58; and Monnat v. Switzerland, no. 73604/01, § 58, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 51279/99

  Frankreich wegen Verletzung der Pressefreiheit zu Schadensersatz verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9540/07

  After all, this is the unequivocal message of those judgments which state that even a sanction of one euro (i.e. any sanction) might be disproportionate (see Eon v. France, no. 26118/10, 14 March 2013, and Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9540/07

  (See Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-IV, Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 66, ECHR 1999-V, Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 92, ECHR 2009; citing: Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 42, Series A no. 103; Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 43, Series A no. 236; Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 63, Series A no. 239; Wingrove, cited above, § 58; and Monnat v. Switzerland, no. 73604/01, § 58, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 73604/01

  Monnat / Schweiz "L´honneur perdu de la Suisse"

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9540/07

  (See Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-IV, Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 66, ECHR 1999-V, Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 92, ECHR 2009; citing: Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 42, Series A no. 103; Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 43, Series A no. 236; Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 63, Series A no. 239; Wingrove, cited above, § 58; and Monnat v. Switzerland, no. 73604/01, § 58, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84

  MÜLLER AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9540/07

  Hence there is an obligation on the State not to encroach unduly on the author's freedom of expression (see Müller and Others v. Switzerland, 24 May 1988, §§ 27 and 33, Series A no. 133).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9540/07

  Moreover, the Court has held in cases concerning freedom of the press that it is neither for the Court nor for the national courts to substitute their own views for those of the press as to what technique of reporting should be adopted by journalists because, as stated above (see paragraph 44 above), Article 10 of the Convention protects not only the substance of the ideas and information expressed, but also the form in which they are conveyed (see, inter alia, Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298).
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 29459/10

  FRATANOLO v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23536/94

  Strafrechtliche Verfolgung auf Grund der Veröffentlichung eines Buches mit …
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 25594/94

  HASHMAN AND HARRUP v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08

  FÁBER v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 14065/15

  LACATUS c. SUISSE

  Il convient de rappeler que la Cour a précisé à maintes reprises que la liberté d'expression s'étend également à certaines formes de comportement (voir, notamment, Ibrahimov et Mammadov c. Azerbaïdjan, nos 63571/16 et 5 autres, §§ 166-167, 13 février 2020, Murat Vural c. Turquie, no 9540/07, 21 octobre 2014, et Semir Güzel c. Turquie, no 29483/09, 13 septembre 2016).
• EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 51168/15

  Spanien: Foto des Königspaares verbrannt - Strafe unzulässig

  Les requérants indiquent aussi que l'utilisation de symboles dans le cadre d'un acte politique a été considérée comme couverte par la liberté d'expression dans les affaires Fáber c. Hongrie (no 40721/08, 24 juillet 2012), Murat Vural c. Turquie (no 9540/07, 21 octobre 2014) et, plus particulièrement, Parti populaire démocrate-chrétien c. Moldova (no 2) (no 25196/04, 2 février 2010 - affaire dans laquelle des portraits de représentants politiques institutionnels et des drapeaux avaient étés brûlés).
• EGMR, 11.10.2018 - 14237/07

  TUSKIA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  As to the necessity in a democratic society of the interference at issue, it is true that the applicants by means of their protest wished to draw the attention of the University staff and the general public to their disapproval of the ongoing reforms at the University and their demand for the resignation of G.Kh. This was a topic of public interest at the material time and there was little scope under Articles 10 § 2 and 11 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on debate relating thereto (see Taranenko, cited above, § 77, and Murat Vural v. Turkey, no. 9540/07, § 52, 21 October 2014).

 
• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 36475/10

  AGIT DEMIR c. TURQUIE

  Se référant à l'arrêt Murat Vural c. Turquie (no 9540/07, § 54, 21 octobre 2014), le Gouvernement indique que l'appréciation d'un acte ou d'un comportement litigieux doit être faite eu égard à sa nature ainsi qu'au but ou à l'intention de son auteur.
• EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 67200/12

  BODALEV v. RUSSIA

  Noting the nature of their conduct, its expressive character as seen from an objective point of view and their purpose or intention (see Karuyev, cited above, § 19, and Murat Vural v. Turkey, no. 9540/07, § 54, 21 October 2014), the Court considers that this action concerned a form of political protest (compare Taranenko, cited above, §§ 69-71 and 77; Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 204-05, 17 July 2018; and Olga Kudrina v. Russia, no. 34313/06, § 49, 6 April 2021).
• EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 62639/12

  DIMITRIOU c. GRÈCE

  Dans certaines affaires, la Cour en formulant des appréciations se réfère aux notions de « valeur fondamentale'(par exemple: Natchova et autres c. Bulgarie [GC], nos 43577/98 et 43579/98, § 97, CEDH 2005-VII), de « justification objective'(voir, par exemple, Stec et autres c. Royaume-Uni [GC], nos 65731/01 et 65900/01, §§ 59, 61 et 66, CEDH 2006-VI), de « point de vue objectif'(Murat Vural c. Turquie, no 9540/07, § 54, 21 octobre 2014) ou de « valeur objective'(Murphy c. Irlande, no 44179/98, § 74, CEDH 2003-IX (extraits)).
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 17526/10

  GÜLCÜ v. TURKEY

  The Court further reiterates 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, mutatis mutandis, Baskaya and Okçuoglu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 23536/94 and 24408/94, § 66, ECHR 1999-IV; Kar and Others v. Turkey, no. 58756/00, § 48, 3 May 2007; and Murat Vural v. Turkey, no. 9540/07, § 64, 21 October 2014).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 4161/13

  KARUYEV v. RUSSIA

  26005/08 and 26160/08, 12 June 2012, concerning a public display of dirty clothes; Murat Vural v. Turkey, no. 9540/07, 21 October 2014, and Ibrahimov and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, nos.
• EGMR, 06.06.2019 - 29411/07

  SÖYLER AGAINST TURKEY AND 1 OTHER CASE

  9540/07.
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 29483/09

  SEMIR GÜZEL v. TURKEY

  Indeed, a review of the Court's case-law shows that Article 10 of the Convention has been held to be applicable not only to the more common forms of expression, such as speeches and written texts, but also to other and less obvious media through which people sometimes choose to convey their opinions, messages, ideas and criticisms (see, in particular, Murat Vural v. Turkey, no. 9540/07, § 44, 21 October 2014, and the examples provided therein in §§ 45-51).
• EGMR, 08.06.2023 - 27926/21

  FRAGOSO DACOSTA v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 34823/05

  ÖZÇELEBI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 68537/13

  IBRAGIMOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.07.2022 - 38825/16

  KOTLYAR v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 44261/19

  PAL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM