Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SELAHATTIN DEMIRTAS v. TURKEY (No. 2)

  Preliminary objections dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-1) Effective domestic remedy;(Art. 35-2-b) Matter already submitted to another international procedure;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 34) ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SELAHATTIN DEMIRTAS c. TURQUIE (N° 2)

  Exceptions préliminaires rejetées (Art. 35) Conditions de recevabilité;(Art. 35-1) Épuisement des voies de recours internes;(Art. 35-1) Recours interne effectif;(Art. 35-2-b) Requête déjà soumise à une autre instance internationale;Exception préliminaire rejetée ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• lto.de (Kurzinformation)

  Haftentlassung angeordnet: Türkei muss Oppositionspolitiker sofort freilassen

In Nachschlagewerken

• Wikipedia
  +1

  Weitere Entscheidungen mit demselben Bezug

  EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 14305/17

  Selahattin Demirtas

  EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17

  Menschenrechtsgerichtshof fordert Freilassung von Selahattin Demirtas

  (Wikipedia-Eintrag mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)

  Selahattin Demirtas

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17
• EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 14305/17

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (39)

• EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 72774/10

  ÇIÇEK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 14305/17

  What may be regarded as reasonable will, however, depend on all the circumstances (see Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 30 August 1990, § 32, Series A no. 182; O'Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, § 34, ECHR 2001-X; Korkmaz and Others v. Turkey, no. 35979/97, § 24, 21 March 2006; Süleyman Erdem v. Turkey, no. 49574/99, § 37, 19 September 2006; and Çiçek v. Turkey (dec.), no. 72774/10, § 62, 3 March 2015).

  What may be regarded as reasonable will, however, depend on all the circumstances (see Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 30 August 1990, § 32, Series A no. 182; O"Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, § 34, ECHR 2001-X; Çiçek v. Turkey (dec.), no. 72774/10, § 62, 3 March 2015; Mehmet Hasan Altan, cited above, § 124; and Sahin Alpay, cited above, § 103).

  I see no reason requiring the Grand Chamber to depart from the Chamber's decision on this issue, which was based on the Court's well-established case-law (see, among many other authorities, Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 30 August 1990, Series A no. 182; O"Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, ECHR 2001-X; and Çiçek v. Turkey (dec.), no. 72774/10, § 62, 3 March 2015).

• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 42461/13

  KARÁCSONY ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 14305/17

  These principles have been confirmed in a number of cases concerning the freedom of expression of members of national or regional parliaments (see, among other authorities, Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 137, 17 May 2016; Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 36, ECHR 2001-II; Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, § 65, 16 July 2009; and Otegi Mondragon v. Spain, no. 2034/07, § 50, ECHR 2011), as well as in a series of cases concerning restrictions on the right of access to court stemming from the operation of parliamentary immunity (see A. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 79; Cordova v. Italy (no. 1), no. 40877/98, § 59, ECHR 2003-I; Cordova v. Italy (no. 2), no. 45649/99, § 60, ECHR 2003-I; Zollmann v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62902/00, ECHR 2003-XII; De Jorio v. Italy, no. 73936/01, § 52, 3 June 2004; Patrono, Cascini and Stefanelli v. Italy, no. 10180/04, § 61, 20 April 2006; and C.G.I.L. and Cofferati v. Italy, no. 46967/07, § 71, 24 February 2009).

  In fact, individuals need to foresee, to a reasonable degree, the consequences which a given action may entail (see, among other authorities, Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 124, 17 May 2016; Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 121, ECHR 2015; and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano, cited above, § 141).

• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 40984/07

  FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 14305/17

  Where the nature of the violation found is such as to leave no real choice as to the measures required to remedy it, the Court may decide to indicate a specific individual measure, as it did in the cases of Assanidze (cited above, §§ 202-03), Ila?Ÿcu and Others (cited above, § 490), Aleksanyan v. Russia (no. 46468/06, §§ 239-40, 22 December 2008), Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 40984/07, §§ 176-77, 22 April 2010), Del Río Prada v. Spain ([GC], no. 42750/09, §§ 138-39, ECHR 2013), Sahin Alpay (cited above, §§ 194-95) and Kavala (cited above, § 240).

  Indeed, an examination of the Grand Chamber cases in which the Court has indicated under Article 46 of the Convention that an applicant should be released shows that in all those judgments, such as Del Río Prada v. Spain ([GC], no. 42750/09, §§ 138-39, ECHR 2013), Ila?Ÿcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, § 490, ECHR 2004-VII) and Assanidze v. Georgia ([GC], no. 71503/01, §§ 202-03, ECHR 2004-II), the indication that the applicants were to be released was based on a complaint in respect of which the Court had found a violation (see also, in respect of Chamber judgments, Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, §§ 239-40, 22 December 2008, Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, §§ 176-77, 22 April 2010, and Sahin Alpay v. Turkey, no. 16538/17, §§ 193-95, 20 March 2018).

 
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 33554/03

  LYKOUREZOS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 14305/17

  In the present case, having regard to the wording of the first two paragraphs of Article 83 of the Constitution and the interpretation, or rather lack thereof, of that provision by the national courts, the Court considers that the interference with the exercise of the applicant's freedom of expression was not "prescribed by law" in that it did not satisfy the requirement of foreseeability, since in defending a political viewpoint, the applicant could legitimately expect to enjoy the benefit of the constitutional legal framework in place, affording the protection of immunity for political speech and constitutional procedural safeguards (see, mutatis mutandis, Lykourezos v. Greece, no. 33554/03, §§ 54-56, ECHR 2006-VIII).

  In the present case, having regard to the wording of the first two paragraphs of Article 83 of the Constitution and the interpretation, or rather lack thereof, of that provision by the national courts, the Court considers that the interference with the exercise of the applicant's freedom of expression was not "prescribed by law" in that it did not satisfy the requirement of foreseeability, since in defending a political viewpoint, the applicant could legitimately expect to enjoy the benefit of the constitutional legal framework in place, affording the protection of immunity for political speech and constitutional procedural safeguards (see, mutatis mutandis, Lykourezos v. Greece, no. 33554/03, §§ 54-56, ECHR 2006-VIII).".

• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 14305/17

  In Castells v. Spain (23 April 1992, § 42, Series A no. 236), which concerned the conviction of a senator for insulting the Government in a press article, the Court held:.

  In fact, interferences with the freedom of expression of an opposition member of parliament call for the closest scrutiny on the part of the Court (see Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 42, Series A no. 236).

• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 21235/11

  POYRAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 14305/17

  (It should be reiterated that, in accordance with Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, a person may be detained only in the context of criminal proceedings, for the purpose of bringing him or her before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 50, ECHR 2000-IX; W?‚och v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 108, ECHR 2000-XI; and Poyraz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 21235/11, § 53, 17 February 2015).

  The Court further reiterates that under the first limb of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, a person may be detained, in the context of criminal proceedings, only for the purpose of bringing him or her before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 50, ECHR 2000-IX; W?‚och v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 108, ECHR 2000-XI; and Poyraz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 21235/11, § 53, 17 February 2015).

• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 14305/17

  (It should be reiterated that, in accordance with Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, a person may be detained only in the context of criminal proceedings, for the purpose of bringing him or her before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 50, ECHR 2000-IX; W?‚och v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 108, ECHR 2000-XI; and Poyraz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 21235/11, § 53, 17 February 2015).

  The Court further reiterates that under the first limb of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, a person may be detained, in the context of criminal proceedings, only for the purpose of bringing him or her before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 50, ECHR 2000-IX; W?‚och v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 108, ECHR 2000-XI; and Poyraz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 21235/11, § 53, 17 February 2015).

• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 14305/17

  (It should be reiterated that, in accordance with Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, a person may be detained only in the context of criminal proceedings, for the purpose of bringing him or her before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 50, ECHR 2000-IX; W?‚och v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 108, ECHR 2000-XI; and Poyraz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 21235/11, § 53, 17 February 2015).

  The Court further reiterates that under the first limb of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, a person may be detained, in the context of criminal proceedings, only for the purpose of bringing him or her before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 50, ECHR 2000-IX; W?‚och v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 108, ECHR 2000-XI; and Poyraz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 21235/11, § 53, 17 February 2015).

• EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 77479/11

  METIN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 14305/17

  In this context, the Court must examine, as the Constitutional Court and the Chamber did, all the relevant evidence in the criminal case file that may confirm or dispel the concrete suspicion grounding the initial detention, and it cannot be bound only by the evidence adduced at first instance (see, mutatis mutandis, Yüksel and Others, cited above, §§ 51-59, Tekin v. Turkey (dec.), no. 3501/09, §§ 55-62, 18 November 2014; and Metin v. Turkey (dec.), no. 77479/11, §§ 53-64, 3 March 2015).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 14305/17

  Accordingly, many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague, and whose interpretation and application are questions of practice (see, for example, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 41, ECHR 2007-IV; Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano, cited above, § 141; and Delfi AS, cited above, § 121).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 3501/09

  TEKIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 15615/07

  FERET c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 46967/07

  C.G.I.L. ET COFFERATI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 31706/10

  GÜLER ET UGUR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06

  EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung
• EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 62902/00

  ZOLLMANN c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 1845/08

  PREVITI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 09.04.2002 - 46726/99

  PODKOLZINA c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94

  WAITE AND KENNEDY v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 48555/10

  RIZA ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 55835/09

  AYSE YÜKSEL ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 40877/98

  CORDOVA c. ITALIE (N° 1)
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 16538/17

  Türkei wegen Haft für Journalisten verurteilt
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

  COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)
• EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 49574/99

  SÜLEYMAN ERDEM c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 35979/97

  KORKMAZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE