Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  REFAH PARTISI (PARTI DE LA PROSPERITE) ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Art. 9, Art. 10, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 14, Art. 17, Art. 18, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 11 Non-lieu à examiner les art. 9 10 14 17 et 18 Non-lieu à examiner P1-1 et P1-3 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  REFAH PARTISI (THE WELFARE PARTY) AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 9, Art. 10, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 14, Art. 17, Art. 18, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  No violation of Art. 11 Not necessary to examine Art. 9 10 14 17 and 18 Not necessary to examine P1-1 and P1-3 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 41340/98
• EGMR, 31.07.2001 - 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98, 41344/98
• EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 41340/98

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EKMR, 03.05.1993 - 16278/90

  KARADUMAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2001 - 41340/98

  16278/90 and 18783/91 concerning the wearing of headscarves at universities.

  Similarly, measures taken in secular universities to ensure that certain fundamentalist religious movements do not disturb public order or undermine the beliefs of others do not constitute violations of Article 9 (see Karaduman v. Turkey, application no. 16278/90, Commission decision of 3 May 1993, Decisions and Reports (DR) 74, p. 93).

• EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87

  OTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2001 - 41340/98

  The Court considers in that connection that where the offending conduct reaches a high level of insult and comes close to a negation of the freedom of religion of others it loses the right to society's tolerance (see, mutatis mutandis, the Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria judgment of 20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A, pp. 17-18, § 47).
• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2001 - 41340/98

  In the Court's view, the applicants cannot derive argument from the fact that Refah's leaders were never convicted of acts contrary to the principle of secularism when such acts are no longer punishable offences in Turkey, a development which the applicants themselves called for and argued in favour of at the time when the law was changed (see, mutatis mutandis, the Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, pp. 21-22, § 47, and the Kolompar v. Belgium judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C, p. 54, § 32).

 
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2001 - 41340/98

  The Court considers in that connection that the nature and severity of the interference are also factors to be taken into account when assessing its proportionality (see, for example, Sürek v. Turkey (No. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 64, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 11613/85

  KOLOMPAR c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2001 - 41340/98

  In the Court's view, the applicants cannot derive argument from the fact that Refah's leaders were never convicted of acts contrary to the principle of secularism when such acts are no longer punishable offences in Turkey, a development which the applicants themselves called for and argued in favour of at the time when the law was changed (see, mutatis mutandis, the Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, pp. 21-22, § 47, and the Kolompar v. Belgium judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C, p. 54, § 32).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2001 - 41340/98

  It is for that reason that freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 10 is applicable, subject to paragraph 2, not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb (see, among many other authorities, the Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 23, § 49, and the Jersild v. Denmark judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 26, § 37).
• EGMR, 15.02.2001 - 42393/98

  Verbot des Tragens eines islamischen Kopftuches während des Unterrichtens an …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2001 - 41340/98

  For example, in a democratic society, the freedom to manifest a religion may be restricted in order to ensure the neutrality of the public education service, an objective contributing to protection of the rights of others, order and public safety (see Dahlab v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 42393/98, 15 February 2001, to be published in the Court's official reports).
• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2001 - 41340/98

  That freedom entails, inter alia, freedom to hold or not to hold religious beliefs and to practise or not to practise a religion (see the Kokkinakis v. Greece judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A, p. 17, § 31; and Buscarini and Others v. San Marino [GC], no. 24645/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2001 - 41340/98

  Such a difference in treatment cannot maintain a fair balance between, on the one hand, the claims of certain religious groups who wish to be governed by their own rules and on the other the interest of society as a whole, which must be based on peace and on tolerance between the various religions and beliefs (see, mutatis mutandis, the judgment of 23 July 1968 in the "Belgian linguistic" case, Series A no. 6, pp. 33-35, §§ 9 and 10, and the Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom judgment, Series A no. 94, pp. 35-36, § 72).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2001 - 41340/98

  But the State has a positive obligation to ensure that everyone within its jurisdiction enjoys in full, and without being able to waive them, the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, the Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 14, § 25).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 01.07.1961 - 332/57

  LAWLESS c. IRLANDE (N° 3)
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 24645/94

  BUSCARINI ET AUTRES c. SAINT-MARIN
• EGMR, 18.01.2001 - 41615/98

  ZAOUI contre la SUISSE