Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CUMHURIYET HALK PARTISI v. TURKEY

  Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

Besprechungen u.ä.

• verfassungsblog.de (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  Pluralismus-Lehrstunde für die Türkei

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CUMHURIYET HALK PARTISI v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 38224/03

  Sanoma Uitgevers BV ./. Niederlande

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 19920/13

  The Court reiterates that for a law to pass the "prescribed by law" test in Article 11 § 2 of the Convention, it must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail and to regulate his conduct accordingly (see, for instance, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 81, 14 September 2010, and Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others, cited above, § 57).

  In these circumstances, the Court need not ascertain whether the other requirements of the second paragraph of Article 11 of the Convention were complied with in the instant case - namely, whether the interference pursued one of the legitimate aims stated in that paragraph and whether it was necessary in a democratic society in pursuance of such an aim (see Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 101, 14 September 2010, and, mutatis mutandis, Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 42, ECHR 1999-VIII).

• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 19920/13

  Lastly, as regards the argument that the applicant party had no opportunity to object to the decisions of the Constitutional Court, the Court reiterates that no right to appeal arises from Article 6 of the Convention (see, for instance, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, § 25-26, Series A no. 11, and Jung v. Germany (dec.), no. 5643/07, 29 September 2009).
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 19920/13

  The requirement of equality of arms in turn implies that each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case - including his evidence - under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis the other party (see Andrejeva [GC], cited above, and Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274).

 
• EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87

  RUIZ-MATEOS c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 19920/13

  As for the allegation that the proceedings in question failed to comply with the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms, the Court reiterates that the right to an adversarial trial means the opportunity for the parties to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed or evidence adduced with a view to influencing the court's decision (see, for instance, Kress v. France [GC], no. 39594/98, § 74, ECHR 2001-VI, and Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, 23 June 1993, § 63, Series A no. 262).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 19920/13

  It therefore includes everything that goes to make up the written law, including the court decisions interpreting the law (see, mutatis mutandis, Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no. 176-A).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 34721/09

  KESKINEN AND VELJEKSET KESKINEN OY v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 19920/13

  The Court reiterates in this connection that according to its case-law, a hearing may not be necessary, for example, when it raises no questions of fact or law which cannot be adequately resolved on the basis of the case file and the parties" written observations (see, among many other authorities, Keskinen and Veljekset Keskinen Oy v. Finland, no. 34721/09, § 33, 5 June 2012, and Meimanis, cited above, § 49).

• EGMR, 07.09.2021 - 8372/10

  DEMOKRAT PARTI c. TURQUIE

  Les textes internationaux pertinents 20. Les passages pertinents des lignes directrices sur la réglementation des partis politiques établies par l'OSCE/BIDDH et la Commission de Venise, et adoptés par cette dernière lors de sa 84ème session plénière (Venise, 15-16 octobre 2010, CDL-AD (2010)024) sont décrits dans l'arrêt Özgürlük ve Dayanisma Partisi (ÖDP) c. Turquie, no 7819/03, § 20, CEDH 2012 et Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi c. Turquie, no 19920/13, §§ 48-56, 26 avril 2016 (extraits).

  Enfin, le requérant ne soutient pas une quelconque atteinte à sa capacité de poursuivre ses activités politiques ou bien de jouir de son statut juridique de parti politique pour participer à la vie politique du pays en raison du non-versement de cette aide financière pour l'année 2006 (comparer avec les griefs présentés dans l'affaire Parti nationaliste basque - Organisation régionale d'Iparralde c. France, no 71251/01, § 19, CEDH 2007-II et Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi c. Turquie, no 19920/13, §§ 62 et 64, 26 avril 2016 (extraits)).

• EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 61177/09

  KORKUT ET AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL TÜRKIYE c. TÜRKIYE

  Dans l'affaire Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi c. Turquie (no 19920/13, § 72, 26 avril 2016 (extraits)), la Cour a ainsi jugé qu'en soumettant un parti politique à des inspections et en lui imposant des sanctions, les autorités l'avaient empêché de se livrer à ses activités.
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 78661/11

  YASAROGLU c. TÜRKIYE

  Toutefois, le fait qu'une disposition légale puisse être interprétée de plusieurs manières ne suffit pas à faire conclure à un manquement à l'exigence de « prévisibilité'au regard de la Convention (voir, parmi d'autres, Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi, no 19920/13, § 92, CEDH 2016).