Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AYAYDIN v. TURKEY

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

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 50171/09

  BELGE v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 20509/10

  The relevant domestic law applicable at the material time can be found in Belge v. Turkey (no. 50171/09, § 19, 6 December 2016).

  The public prosecutor brought that charge against the applicant, alleging that he had chanted a slogan which had a particularly violent tone (paragraph 7 above) (see Yılmaz and Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 68514/01, § 66, 17 July 2008, and Belge v. Turkey, no. 50171/09, § 35, 6 December 2016).

• EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 16853/05

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 20509/10

  Noting that the applicant's conviction had been based on his participation in an illegal demonstration which had turned into a propaganda event in favour of the PKK and on the fact that he had acted together with and led the other demonstrators, the Government claimed that the present case was different from the case of Faruk Temel v. Turkey (no. 16853/05, 1 February 2011).
• EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 43807/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 20509/10

  As regards the necessity of the interference in a democratic society, the Court notes that it has already examined similar grievances in a number of cases and found violations of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (see, for example, Savgın v. Turkey, no. 13304/03, §§ 39-48, 2 February 2010; Gül and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870/02, §§ 32-45, 8 June 2010; Menteş v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 33347/04, §§ 39-54, 25 January 2011; Kılıç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, §§ 20-31, 29 November 2011; Faruk Temel, cited above, §§ 58-64; Öner and Türk v. Turkey, no. 51962/12, §§ 19-27, 31 March 2015; Gülcü v. Turkey, no. 17526, § §§ 110-17, 19 January 2016; Belge, cited above, §§ 24-38; Yigin v. Turkey [Committee], no. 36643/09, §§ 22-24, 30 January 2018; and Zengin and Çakır v. Turkey [Committee], no. 57069/09, §§ 18-20, 13 February 2018).

• EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 21377/03

  PERIHAN AND MEZOPOTAMYA BASIN YAYIN A.S. v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 20509/10

  v. Turkey, no. 21377/03, §§ 48-49, 21 January 2014).
• EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 51962/12

  ÖNER AND TÜRK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 20509/10

  As regards the necessity of the interference in a democratic society, the Court notes that it has already examined similar grievances in a number of cases and found violations of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (see, for example, Savgın v. Turkey, no. 13304/03, §§ 39-48, 2 February 2010; Gül and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870/02, §§ 32-45, 8 June 2010; Menteş v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 33347/04, §§ 39-54, 25 January 2011; Kılıç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, §§ 20-31, 29 November 2011; Faruk Temel, cited above, §§ 58-64; Öner and Türk v. Turkey, no. 51962/12, §§ 19-27, 31 March 2015; Gülcü v. Turkey, no. 17526, § §§ 110-17, 19 January 2016; Belge, cited above, §§ 24-38; Yigin v. Turkey [Committee], no. 36643/09, §§ 22-24, 30 January 2018; and Zengin and Çakır v. Turkey [Committee], no. 57069/09, §§ 18-20, 13 February 2018).
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 68514/01

  YILMAZ ET KILIÇ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 20509/10

  The public prosecutor brought that charge against the applicant, alleging that he had chanted a slogan which had a particularly violent tone (paragraph 7 above) (see Yılmaz and Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 68514/01, § 66, 17 July 2008, and Belge v. Turkey, no. 50171/09, § 35, 6 December 2016).
• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 36475/10

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 20509/10

  Hence, by acknowledging some of the facts which concern the exercise of his freedom of expression, the applicant must be considered to have raised, in substance, his complaint under Article 10 of the Convention before the national courts (see Ulusoy v. Turkey, no. 52709/99, § 38, 31 July 2007; Yılmaz and Kılıç, cited above, § 43; and Agit Demir v. Turkey, no. 36475/10, §§ 66-67, 27 February 2018[1]; see also Özgür Radyo-Ses Radyo Televizyon Yayın Yapım Ve Tanıtım A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 1), nos.
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 13304/03

  SAVGIN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 20509/10

  As regards the necessity of the interference in a democratic society, the Court notes that it has already examined similar grievances in a number of cases and found violations of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (see, for example, Savgın v. Turkey, no. 13304/03, §§ 39-48, 2 February 2010; Gül and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870/02, §§ 32-45, 8 June 2010; Menteş v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 33347/04, §§ 39-54, 25 January 2011; Kılıç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, §§ 20-31, 29 November 2011; Faruk Temel, cited above, §§ 58-64; Öner and Türk v. Turkey, no. 51962/12, §§ 19-27, 31 March 2015; Gülcü v. Turkey, no. 17526, § §§ 110-17, 19 January 2016; Belge, cited above, §§ 24-38; Yigin v. Turkey [Committee], no. 36643/09, §§ 22-24, 30 January 2018; and Zengin and Çakır v. Turkey [Committee], no. 57069/09, §§ 18-20, 13 February 2018).
• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 36643/09

  YIGIN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 20509/10

  As regards the necessity of the interference in a democratic society, the Court notes that it has already examined similar grievances in a number of cases and found violations of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (see, for example, Savgın v. Turkey, no. 13304/03, §§ 39-48, 2 February 2010; Gül and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870/02, §§ 32-45, 8 June 2010; Menteş v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 33347/04, §§ 39-54, 25 January 2011; Kılıç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, §§ 20-31, 29 November 2011; Faruk Temel, cited above, §§ 58-64; Öner and Türk v. Turkey, no. 51962/12, §§ 19-27, 31 March 2015; Gülcü v. Turkey, no. 17526, § §§ 110-17, 19 January 2016; Belge, cited above, §§ 24-38; Yigin v. Turkey [Committee], no. 36643/09, §§ 22-24, 30 January 2018; and Zengin and Çakır v. Turkey [Committee], no. 57069/09, §§ 18-20, 13 February 2018).
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 57069/09

  ZENGIN AND ÇAKIR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 20509/10

  As regards the necessity of the interference in a democratic society, the Court notes that it has already examined similar grievances in a number of cases and found violations of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (see, for example, Savgın v. Turkey, no. 13304/03, §§ 39-48, 2 February 2010; Gül and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870/02, §§ 32-45, 8 June 2010; Menteş v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 33347/04, §§ 39-54, 25 January 2011; Kılıç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, §§ 20-31, 29 November 2011; Faruk Temel, cited above, §§ 58-64; Öner and Türk v. Turkey, no. 51962/12, §§ 19-27, 31 March 2015; Gülcü v. Turkey, no. 17526, § §§ 110-17, 19 January 2016; Belge, cited above, §§ 24-38; Yigin v. Turkey [Committee], no. 36643/09, §§ 22-24, 30 January 2018; and Zengin and Çakır v. Turkey [Committee], no. 57069/09, §§ 18-20, 13 February 2018).
• EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 33347/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 30.03.2006 - 64178/00

  OZGUR RADYO-SES RADYO TELEVIZYON YAYIN YAPIM VE TANITIM AS. c. TURQUIE (N° 1)
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 52709/99

  ULUSOY v. TURKEY

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 64375/12

  DÜZEL AGAINST TURKEY AND 20 OTHER CASES

  20509/10.
• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 69270/12

  ÖZER v. TURKEY

  La Cour a ainsi considéré dans ce deuxième groupe d'affaires que: les autorités nationales n'avaient pas apporté une motivation satisfaisante ou des motifs pertinents et suffisants pour justifier la condamnation pénale des requérants et des explications suffisantes notamment sur la question de savoir si les écrits, déclarations ou actes litigieux pouvaient, eu égard à leur contenu, au contexte dans lequel ils s'inscrivaient et à leur capacité de nuire, être considérés comme renfermant une incitation à l'usage de la violence, à la résistance armée ou au soulèvement, ou comme constituant un discours de haine ; elles n'avaient pas procédé à une analyse appropriée au regard de tous les critères énoncés et mis en œuvre par elle dans les affaires relatives à la liberté d'expression ; ou elles n'avaient pas effectué une mise en balance adéquate et conforme aux critères établis par sa jurisprudence entre le droit du requérant à la liberté d'expression et les buts légitimes poursuivis (voir, à cet égard, Halis c. Turquie, no 30007/96, § 35, 11 janvier 2005, Menteş c. Turquie (no 2), no 33347/04, § 51, 25 janvier 2011, Fatih Taş c. Turquie (no 4), no 51511/08, § 38, 24 avril 2018, Mart et autres c. Turquie, no 57031/10, § 31, 19 mars 2019, Yigin c. Turquie [comité], no 36643/09, § 23, 30 janvier 2018, Zengin et Çakır c. Turquie [comité], no 57069/09, § 19, 13 février 2018, Yüksel [comité], précité, §§ 24-26, Ayaydın c. Turquie [comité], no 20509/10, § 20, 25 septembre 2018, Varhan c. Turquie [comité], no 2433/12, § 22, 25 septembre 2018, Kınık c. Turquie [comité], no 39047/11, § 29, 25 septembre 2018, Düzel c. Turquie [comité], no 64375/12, § 21, 25 septembre 2018, Yıldırım c. Turquie [comité], no 74054/11, §§ 20-22, 25 septembre 2018, Gül [comité], précité, §§ 23-25, Aydemir et Karavil c. Turquie [comité], no 16624/12, § 21, 9 octobre 2018, Akyüz c. Turquie [comité], no 63681/12, § 21, 7 mai 2019, Dağtekin c. Turquie [comité], no 33513/11, § 25, 28 mai 2019, Kok c. Turquie [comité], no 32954/12, § 22, 2 juillet 2019, Yıldız c. Turquie [comité], no 66575/12, 3 septembre 2019, Yıldız et autres c. Turquie [comité], no 39543/11, §§ 25-26, 1er octobre 2019, Aktaş et autres c. Turquie [comité], no 22112/12, § 21, 1er octobre 2019, et Cin c. Turquie [comité], no 31605/12, § 20, 1er octobre 2019).