Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALBAYRAK c. TURQUIE

  Art. 10, Art. 14 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 10 Non-violation de l'art. 14 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALBAYRAK v. TURKEY

  Art. 10, Art. 14 MRK
  Vilation of Art. 10 No violation of Art. 14 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 16.11.2000 - 38406/97
• EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 38406/97

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 38406/97

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, Ä°brahim Aksoy v. Turkey, nos. 28635/95, 30171/96 and 34535/97, § 51-53, 10 October 2000, Vogt v. Germany, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323, pp. 25-26, §§ 52-53, and Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, §§ 61-62, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 28396/95

  Nichtberufung eines liechtensteiner Richters in das Amt des Gerichtspräsidenten …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 38406/97

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, Ä°brahim Aksoy v. Turkey, nos. 28635/95, 30171/96 and 34535/97, § 51-53, 10 October 2000, Vogt v. Germany, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323, pp. 25-26, §§ 52-53, and Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, §§ 61-62, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 28635/95

  IBRAHIM AKSOY c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 38406/97

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, Ä°brahim Aksoy v. Turkey, nos. 28635/95, 30171/96 and 34535/97, § 51-53, 10 October 2000, Vogt v. Germany, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323, pp. 25-26, §§ 52-53, and Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, §§ 61-62, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 08.02.2001 - 47936/99

  PITKEVICH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 38406/97

  Given the prominent place among State organs which is occupied by the judiciary in a democratic society, the Court considers that this is particularly so in the case of restrictions on the freedom of expression of a judge in connection with the performance of his functions, albeit the judiciary is not part of the ordinary civil service (see Pitkevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47936/99, ECHR 2001).

• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 28003/03

  HADEP AND DEMIR v. TURKEY

  For example, in its judgment in the case of Albayrak v. Turkey (no. 38406/97, § 47, ECHR 2008-...), which concerned an applicant who watched MED TV, the Court reiterated that freedom of expression required that care be taken to dissociate the personal views of a person from received information that others wished or might be willing to impart to him or her (see also Korkmaz v. Turkey (no. 1), no. 40987/98, §§ 10, 26 and 28, 20 December 2005).