Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KILIÇDAROGLU v. TURKEY

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KILIÇDAROGLU c. TURQUIE

  Violation de l'article 10 - Liberté d'expression-général (Article 10-1 - Liberté d'expression) (französisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KILIÇDAROGLU c. TURQUIE

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

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (21)

• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 69575/10

  RASHKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 16558/18

  Political expression enjoys a high level of protection under Article 10 of the Convention, since very strong reasons are required for justifying restrictions on political speech (see Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 125, ECHR 2015) and there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on speech which, like the speeches in the instant case, is political in nature (see Rashkin v. Russia, no. 69575/10, § 18, 7 July 2020, not yet final).
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 50147/11

  REICHMAN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 16558/18

  The Court has thus raised the lack of distinction between facts and value judgments in several cases (see OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v. Russia, no. 39748/05, § 44, 25 April 2017; Reichman v. France, no. 50147/11, § 72, 12 July 2016; Paturel v. France, no. 54968/00, § 35, 22 December 2005; and De Carolis and France Télévisions v. France, no. 29313/10, § 54, 21 January 2016).
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 38010/05

  NADTOKA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 16558/18

  When the impugned remarks are analysed in the light of the speeches as a whole, it must be said that those expressions were directly related to the many topical issues that were addressed by the applicant in his two speeches; those issues included the construction of a hydroelectric power station, the Deniz Feneri court case - a very significant one -, the tragic event of Uludere, which had led to thirty-four deaths, a judicial procedure before the Supreme Administrative Court, etc. (see, mutatis mutandis, Nadtoka v. Russia, no. 38010/05, § 46, 31 May 2016).

 
• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 46311/99

  McVICAR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 16558/18

  The requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is impossible to fulfil and infringes freedom of opinion itself, which is a fundamental part of the right secured by Article 10 (see Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 103; McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, § 83, ECHR 2002-III; Gorelishvili v. Georgia, no. 12979/04, § 38, 5 June 2007; Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, §§ 29-30, 21 July 2005; and Fedchenko v. Russia, no. 33333/04, § 37, 11 February 2010).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 16558/18

  They may also be recognised as the type of political invective used by politicians in the course of their debates (see, mutatis mutandis, Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 40, ECHR 2001-II; Roseiro Bento v. Portugal, no. 29288/02, § 44, 18 April 2006; and Athanasios Makris v. Greece, no. 55135/10, § 36, 9 March 2017; see also Lacroix, cited above, § 44).
• EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 29313/10

  DE CAROLIS ET FRANCE TELEVISIONS c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 16558/18

  The Court has thus raised the lack of distinction between facts and value judgments in several cases (see OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v. Russia, no. 39748/05, § 44, 25 April 2017; Reichman v. France, no. 50147/11, § 72, 12 July 2016; Paturel v. France, no. 54968/00, § 35, 22 December 2005; and De Carolis and France Télévisions v. France, no. 29313/10, § 54, 21 January 2016).
• EGMR, 05.06.2007 - 12979/04

  GORELISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 16558/18

  The requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is impossible to fulfil and infringes freedom of opinion itself, which is a fundamental part of the right secured by Article 10 (see Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 103; McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, § 83, ECHR 2002-III; Gorelishvili v. Georgia, no. 12979/04, § 38, 5 June 2007; Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, §§ 29-30, 21 July 2005; and Fedchenko v. Russia, no. 33333/04, § 37, 11 February 2010).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 16558/18

  Accordingly, in view of the topical issues addressed in the two speeches, there was some factual basis for the impugned remarks (compare Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 51, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 33333/04

  FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 16558/18

  The requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is impossible to fulfil and infringes freedom of opinion itself, which is a fundamental part of the right secured by Article 10 (see Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 103; McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, § 83, ECHR 2002-III; Gorelishvili v. Georgia, no. 12979/04, § 38, 5 June 2007; Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, §§ 29-30, 21 July 2005; and Fedchenko v. Russia, no. 33333/04, § 37, 11 February 2010).
• EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 39748/05

  OOO IZDATELSKIY TSENTR KVARTIRNYY RYAD v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 16558/18

  The Court has thus raised the lack of distinction between facts and value judgments in several cases (see OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v. Russia, no. 39748/05, § 44, 25 April 2017; Reichman v. France, no. 50147/11, § 72, 12 July 2016; Paturel v. France, no. 54968/00, § 35, 22 December 2005; and De Carolis and France Télévisions v. France, no. 29313/10, § 54, 21 January 2016).
• EGMR, 22.12.2005 - 54968/00

  PATUREL c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 18.04.2006 - 29288/02

  ROSEIRO BENTO c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 09.03.2017 - 55135/10

  ATHANASIOS MAKRIS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …
• EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 35030/13

  Petra Reski
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)
• EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 51405/12

  Deutsche Medien scheitern
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 45083/06

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND MILASHINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE

• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 23332/20

  AKAYDIN c. TÜRKIYE

  La condamnation au civil du requérant constitue une ingérence dans l'exercice par lui de son droit à la liberté d'expression protégé par l'article 10 de la Convention (Kiliçdaroglu c. Turquie, no 16558/18, § 36, 27 octobre 2020).
• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 36658/18

  ZHABLYANOV v. BULGARIA

  Although entailing a reduction in pay, it cannot be equated to the loss of a stable job and of one's livelihood (see Vogt, § 60; Fuentes Bobo, § 49; and Heinisch, § 91, all cited above), to a disciplinary sanction imposed on a member of parliament (see Szél and Others v. Hungary, no. 44357/13, § 84, 16 September 2014), let alone to an order to pay damages (see Rashkin v. Russia, no. 69575/10, § 19, 7 July 2020; Kiliçdaroglu v. Turkey, no. 16558/18, § 66, 27 October 2020; and Marinoni v. Italy, no. 27801/12, § 82, 18 November 2021), to a lifting of parliamentary immunity opening the way to a criminal prosecution (see Selahattin Demirta?Ÿ, cited above, §§ 246-47, and Kerestecioglu Demir v. Turkey, no. 68136/16, § 67, 4 May 2021), or to serious punitive measures such as a criminal conviction (see Lehideux and Isorni, § 57, and Wojczuk, § 105, both cited above), a criminal fine (see Soulas and Others v. France, no. 15948/03, § 46, 10 July 2008; Orban and Others v. France, no. 20985/05, § 53, 15 January 2009; and ? imunic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20373/17, § 47, 22 January 2019), a criminal fine convertible into imprisonment (see Nix v. Germany (dec.).
• EGMR, 18.11.2021 - 27801/12

  MARINONI c. ITALIE

  Même si elle a une connotation péjorative, elle ne semble pas justifier en soi, dans le contexte de la présente affaire, une sanction, fut-elle civile (comparer Milosavljevic c. Serbie (no 2), no 47274/19, § 55, 21 septembre 2021; Kiliçdaroglu c. Turquie, no 16558/18, § 44, 27 octobre 2020; Fedchenko c. Russie (no 5), no 17229/13, § 51, 2 octobre 2018; Axel Springer AG c. Allemagne [GC], no 39954/08, § 83, 7 février 2012).

 
• EGMR, 05.07.2022 - 42315/15

  DROUSIOTIS v. CYPRUS

  Certain attention-grabbing expressions do not by themselves raise an issue under the Court's case-law (see Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés, cited above, § 145), while style forms part of communication and is protected together with the content of the expression (see Uj, cited above, § 20; see also, mutatis mutandis, Kiliçdaroglu v. Turkey, no. 16558/18, § 62, 27 October 2020).
• EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 45994/15

  BILD GMBH & CO. KG c. ALLEMAGNE

  Quant au fond et à la forme du reportage, la Cour rappelle que la liberté journalistique comprend le recours possible à une certaine dose d'exagération, voire de provocation notamment à l'égard d'une personnalité politique (Kiliçdaroglu c. Turquie, no 16558/18, § 63, 27 octobre 2020, Lopes Gomes da Silva c. Portugal, no 37698/97, § 34, 28 septembre 2000).
• EGMR - 21536/22 (anhängig)

  KILIÇDAROGLU c. TÜRKIYE

  En particulier, les juridictions internes, à savoir les tribunaux civils et la Cour constitutionnelle, ont-elles effectué, dans leurs décisions, une mise en balance adéquate, dans le respect des critères établis par la jurisprudence de la Cour, entre le droit du requérant à la liberté d'expression et le droit de la partie adverse au respect de sa vie privée (Kiliçdaroglu c. Turquie, no 16558/18, §§ 42-46, 27 octobre 2020) ?.