Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 20159/15 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2020,15660) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BULGAKOV v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive information);Violation of Article 13+10 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 10 - Freedom of ...
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 48226/10
Türkei wegen YouTube-Blockade verurteilt
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 20159/15
The measure which prevented visitors to the applicant's website from accessing its content amounted to "interference by a public authority" with the right to receive and impart information, since Article 10 guarantees not only the right to impart information but also the right of the public to receive it (see Ahmet Yildirim, cited above, §§ 51 and 55, and Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, nos. 48226/10 and 14027/11, § 56, ECHR 2015 (extracts)). - EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10
Menschenrechtsgerichtshof verurteilt Türkei wegen Online-Zensur
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 20159/15
It applies not only to the content of information but also to the means of its dissemination, for any restriction imposed on the latter necessarily interferes with that freedom (see Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, §§ 48-54, ECHR 2012).
- EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 32401/10
TAGANROG LRO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The Court will therefore examine them together, having regard to its findings in similar cases concerning the blocking of access to websites in Russia (see, among others, OOO Flavus and Others, cited above, and Bulgakov v. Russia, no. 20159/15, 23 June 2020). - EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 39685/19
SASMA c. TÜRKIYE
La Cour considère que la condamnation au civil du requérant et le blocage de l'accès au site Internet litigieux constituent une ingérence dans l'exercice par l'intéressé de son droit à la liberté d'expression (voir, mutatis mutandis, Bulgakov c. Russie, no 20159/15, § 29, 23 juin 2020, et Petro Carbo Chem S.E. c. Roumanie, no 21768/12, § 37, 30 juin 2020).