Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ÖNER AND TÜRK v. TURKEY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ÖNER AND TÜRK v. TURKEY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 16853/05

  FARUK TEMEL c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 51962/12

  Under former Section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713), any person who disseminated propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation was liable to a term of imprisonment of between one and five years (Faruk Temel v. Turkey, no. 16853/05, § 27, 1 February 2011).

  While questions could arise with respect to the foreseeability of that provision in its application, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal with this issue, having regard to its conclusion below, regarding the necessity of the interference (see Faruk Temel v. Turkey, no. 16853/05, § 49, 1 February 2011; and Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-VIII).

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 51962/12

  Moreover, the speeches in question delivered by the applicants were not capable of inciting violence by instilling a deep-seated and irrational hatred against identifiable persons (Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-IV) and therefore did not constitute hate speech.
• EGMR, 07.02.2006 - 75946/01

  HALIS DOGAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 51962/12

  The Court considers that, taken as a whole, the applicant's speech does not encourage violence, armed resistance or an uprising (see, Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 50, 8 July 1999, and contrast Halis Dogan v. Turkey, no. 75946/01, §§ 35-38, 7 February 2006).
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 51962/12

  While questions could arise with respect to the foreseeability of that provision in its application, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal with this issue, having regard to its conclusion below, regarding the necessity of the interference (see Faruk Temel v. Turkey, no. 16853/05, § 49, 1 February 2011; and Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24919/94

  GERGER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 51962/12

  The Court considers that, taken as a whole, the applicant's speech does not encourage violence, armed resistance or an uprising (see, Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 50, 8 July 1999, and contrast Halis Dogan v. Turkey, no. 75946/01, §§ 35-38, 7 February 2006).

• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 73990/11

  I.K. c. TÜRKIYE

  En ce qui concerne la première exception, la Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà examiné, et rejeté, pareil argument dans l'affaire Öner et Türk c. Turquie (no 51962/12, § 17, 31 mars 2015).
• EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 48694/10

  ÇIÇEK ET AUTRES c. TÜRKIYE

  La Cour note qu'elle a déjà examiné et rejeté des exceptions identiques soulevées par le Gouvernement dans de précédentes affaires (voir Öner et Türk c. Turquie, no 51962/12, §§ 14-18, 31 mars 2015, et Özer c. Turquie (no 3), no. 69270/12, § 19, 11 février 2020).
• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 76619/11

  ÇETINKAYA v. TÜRKIYE

  The Court also dismisses the second limb of the Government's preliminary objection in view of its established case-law (see, among other authorities, Öner and Türk v. Turkey, no. 51962/12, §§ 14-18, 31 March 2015).

 
• EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 50171/09

  BELGE v. TURKEY

  The Court considers that the expressions "the leader of the Kurdish people" and "guerrilla" by themselves do not incite to violence (see Erdogdu and Ince v. Turkey [GC], nos. 25067/94 and 25068/94, § 52, ECHR 1999-IV, in which the Court considered that an interview published in a monthly review in which the members of the PKK had been referred as "guerrilla" had not constituted incitement to violence and could not be construed as liable to incite to violence; Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 50, 8 July 1999, in which the Court held that the applicant's speech, which referred to the members of the PKK as "guerrilla", had constituted political criticism of the Turkish authorities and not an incitement to violence, armed resistance or an uprising; Bahçeci and Turan, cited above, § 30 and Savgin v. Turkey, no. 13304/03, § 45, 2 February 2010, in which the Court considered that text messages and slogans which referred to Abdullah Öcalan as the president had not incited to violence; Faruk Temel, cited above, § 62, in which the Court found that referring to Abdullah Öcalan as "esteemed" (sayin) during a speech did not incite to violence; and Öner and Türk v. Turkey, no. 51962/12, § 24, 31 March 2015, in which the Court held that the applicant's speech, in which he described Abdullah Öcalan as the "Kurdish leader" did not constitute incitement to violence).
• EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 74624/11

  BARAN c. TÜRKIYE

  En ce qui concerne la première et la deuxième exceptions, la Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà examiné, et rejeté, des arguments analogues respectivement dans les affaires Öner et Türk c. Turquie (no 51962/12, §§ 17-18, 31 mars 2015) et Gülcü c. Turquie (no 17526/10, § 100, 19 janvier 2016).
• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 69270/12

  ÖZER c. TURQUIE (N° 3)

  En ce qui concerne l'exception de non-épuisement des voies de recours internes, la Cour rappelle avoir déjà jugé que le sursis à l'exécution des peines prévu par la loi no 6352 ne consistait pas en une révision du fond de la procédure pénale, mais seulement en une modification portant sur la peine prononcée à l'issue de cette procédure (Öner et Türk c. Turquie, no 51962/12, § 17, 31 mars 2015).
• EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 37671/12

  GÜLLÜ c. TURQUIE

  Quant à l'exception de non-épuisement des voies de recours internes, elle rappelle avoir déjà jugé que le sursis à l'exécution des peines prévu par la loi no 6352 ne consistait pas en une révision du fond de la procédure pénale, mais seulement en une modification portant sur la peine prononcée à l'issue de cette procédure (Öner et Türk c. Turquie, no 51962/12, § 17, 31 mars 2015).
• EGMR, 31.01.2023 - 50994/11

  BALTA c. TÜRKIYE

  Quant au second moyen soulevé à l'appui de cette exception, la Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà examiné, et rejeté, pareil argument dans l'affaire Öner et Türk c. Turquie, (no 51962/12, § 17, 31 mars 2015).
• EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 57279/11

  BAT v. TÜRKIYE

  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION 9. As to the Government's objection on the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and their contention that the application was, in the alternative, manifestly ill-founded, the Court notes that it has already examined and dismissed identical objections submitted by the Government (see Öner and Türk v. Turkey, no. 51962/12, §§ 14-18, 31 March 2015; and Isikirik v.Turkey no. 41226/09, §§ 45-48, 14 November 2017).
• EGMR, 29.09.2020 - 56816/10

  BOZAN c. TURQUIE

  Pour ce qui est de l'exception de non-épuisement des voies de recours internes, la Cour relève que, à l'instar de la procédure de réexamen prévue par la loi no 6352, 1a révision de la condamnation pénale du requérant effectuée en application de l'article 7 § 5 de la loi no 3713 tel qu'amendé par l'article 8 § 2 de la loi no 6459 ne consiste pas en une révision du fond de la procédure pénale, mais seulement en un réexamen de la peine prononcée à l'issue de cette procédure (voir, mutatis mutandis, Öner et Türk c. Turquie, no 51962/12, § 17, 31 mars 2015).
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 42153/11

  RAMAZAN TAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 55038/11

  KERÇIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 39543/11

  YILDIZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 69604/12

  YAMAÇ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 35575/12

  ETE c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 31.01.2023 - 70098/11

  GÖK c. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 29.10.2019 - 36226/11

  HATICE ÇOBAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 41788/09

  BULUS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE