Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 52709/99 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,72101) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ULUSOY v. TURKEY
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10 MRK
Vilation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 10 (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (4) Neu Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95
FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 52709/99
The Court finds that that submission was directly connected to Article 10 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, §§ 36-39, ECHR 1999-I). - EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94
CEYLAN c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 52709/99
The Court has examined a number of cases raising similar issues to those arising in the present case and found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see, in particular, the following judgments: Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 38, ECHR 1999-IV; Öztürk, cited above, § 74; Ä°brahim Aksoy, cited above, § 80; Kızılyaprak v. Turkey, no. 27528/95, § 43, 2 October 2003; and Han v. Turkey, no. 50997/99, §§ 27-33, 13 September 2005). - EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24762/94
SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 4)
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 52709/99
The Court has examined the reasons given in the State Security Court's judgment and does not consider them sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression (see, mutatis mutandis, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 4) [GC], no. 24762/94, § 58, 8 July 1999).
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24919/94
GERGER v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 52709/99
In the Court's view, this is the essential factor (contrast Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-IV, and Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 50, 8 July 1999) in the assessment of the necessity of the measure. - EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95
SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 52709/99
In the Court's view, this is the essential factor (contrast Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-IV, and Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 50, 8 July 1999) in the assessment of the necessity of the measure. - EGMR, 02.10.2003 - 27528/95
KIZILYAPRAK c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 52709/99
The Court has examined a number of cases raising similar issues to those arising in the present case and found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see, in particular, the following judgments: Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 38, ECHR 1999-IV; Öztürk, cited above, § 74; Ä°brahim Aksoy, cited above, § 80; Kızılyaprak v. Turkey, no. 27528/95, § 43, 2 October 2003; and Han v. Turkey, no. 50997/99, §§ 27-33, 13 September 2005). - EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 50997/99
HAN v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 52709/99
The Court has examined a number of cases raising similar issues to those arising in the present case and found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see, in particular, the following judgments: Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 38, ECHR 1999-IV; Öztürk, cited above, § 74; Ä°brahim Aksoy, cited above, § 80; Kızılyaprak v. Turkey, no. 27528/95, § 43, 2 October 2003; and Han v. Turkey, no. 50997/99, §§ 27-33, 13 September 2005). - EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 50087/99
MÜSLÜM ÖZBEY c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 52709/99
In any event, the Court considers that, although the suspension of the remainder of the applicant's prison sentence might be a relevant factor to be taken into account in assessing the proportionality of that measure to the legitimate aim it pursued, a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not sufficient in principle to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (see, among other authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 73, ECHR 1999-VI; see also Müslüm Özbey v. Turkey, no. 50087/99, § 26, 21 December 2006).
- EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 48694/10
ÇIÇEK ET AUTRES c. TÜRKIYE
La Cour rappelle qu'une décision ou une mesure favorable au requérant ne suffit en principe à lui retirer la qualité de « victime'que si les autorités nationales ont reconnu, explicitement ou en substance, puis réparé la violation de la Convention (voir Öztürk c. Turquie [GC], no 22479/93, § 73, CEDH 1999-VI ; Erdogdu c. Turquie, no 25723/94, § 72, CEDH 2000-VI, Müslüm Özbey c. Turquie, no 50087/99, § 26, 21 décembre 2006, et Ulusoy c. Turquie, no 52709/99, § 34, 31 juillet 2007). - EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 17526/10
GÜLCÜ v. TURKEY
The Court reiterates in this connection that a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not sufficient in principle to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 73, ECHR 1999-VI; Erdogdu v. Turkey, no. 25723/94, § 72, ECHR 2000-VI; Müslüm Özbey v. Turkey, no. 50087/99, § 26, 21 December 2006; and Ulusoy v. Turkey, no. 52709/99, § 34, 31 July 2007). - EGMR, 06.06.2023 - 58262/10
KAZAN c. TÜRKIYE
La Cour rappelle qu'une décision ou mesure favorable au requérant ne suffit en principe à retirer à l'intéressé la qualité de « victime'que si les autorités nationales ont reconnu, explicitement ou en substance, puis réparé la violation de la Convention (voir Öztürk c. Turquie [GC], no 22479/93, § 73, CEDH 1999-VI ; Erdogdu c. Turquie, no 25723/94, § 72, CEDH 2000-VI, Müslüm Özbey c. Turquie, no 50087/99, § 26, 21 décembre 2006, et Ulusoy c. Turquie, no 52709/99, § 34, 31 juillet 2007). - EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 5782/10
POLAT AND TALI v. TURKEY
25067/94 and 25068/94, §§ 32-55, ECHR 1999-IV; Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, §§ 34-52, 8 July 1999; Koç and Tambas v. Turkey, no. 50934/99, §§ 25-40, 21 March 2006; Ulusoy v. Turkey, no. 52709/99, §§ 31-49, 31 July 2007; Savgin v. Turkey, no. 13304/03, §§ 39-48, 2 February 2010; Gül and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870/02, §§ 32-45, 8 June 2010; Mentes v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 33347/04, §§ 39-54, 25 January 2011; Kiliç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, §§ 20-31, 29 November 2011; Faruk Temel, cited above, §§ 58-64; Yavuz and Yaylali v. Turkey, no. 12606/11, §§ 42-55, 17 December 2013; Öner and Türk, cited above, §§ 19-27, 31 March 2015; and Belge v. Turkey, no. 50171/09, §§ 24-38, 6 December 2016).