Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KARATAS c. TURQUIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 7, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'Art. 10 Violation de l'Art. 6-1 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KARATAS v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 7, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 14.10.1996 - 23168/94
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23168/94

Wird zitiert von ... (19)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23168/94

  The Court reiterates the fundamental principles underlying its judgments relating to Article 10, as set out, for example, in the Zana judgment (cited above, pp. 2547-48, § 51) and in Fressoz and Roire v. France ([GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I).

  Although the protection of Article 10 extends to information and ideas that "offend, shock or disturb the State or any section of the population" (see the Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 23, § 49; the Castells v. Spain judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, pp. 22-23, § 42; the Jersild v. Denmark judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 26, § 37; and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I), this is always subject to paragraph 2. Those invoking Article 10 must not overstep certain bounds.

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23168/94

  The President of the Court, Mr L. Wildhaber, decided that, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, a single Grand Chamber should be constituted to hear the instant case and twelve other cases against Turkey, namely: Arslan v. Turkey (application no. 23462/94); Polat v. Turkey (no. 23500/94); Ceylan v. Turkey (no. 23556/94); OkçuoÄ?lu v. Turkey (no. 24246/94); Gerger v. Turkey (no. 24919/94); ErdoÄ?du and Ä°nce v. Turkey (nos. 25067/94 and 25068/94); Baskaya and OkçuoÄ?lu v. Turkey (nos. 23536/94 and 24408/94); Sürek and Özdemir v. Turkey (nos. 23927/94 and 24277/94); Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) (no. 26682/95); Sürek v. Turkey (no. 2) (no. 24122/94); Sürek v. Turkey (no. 3) (no. 24735/94); and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 4) (no. 24762/94).

  We share the Court's conclusion that there has been a violation of Article 10 in the present case although we have reached the same result by a route which employs the more contextual approach set out in the partly dissenting opinion of Judge Palm in Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) ([GC], no. 26682/95, ECHR 1999-IV).

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23168/94

  Although the protection of Article 10 extends to information and ideas that "offend, shock or disturb the State or any section of the population" (see the Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 23, § 49; the Castells v. Spain judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, pp. 22-23, § 42; the Jersild v. Denmark judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 26, § 37; and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I), this is always subject to paragraph 2. Those invoking Article 10 must not overstep certain bounds.

 
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23168/94

  Although the protection of Article 10 extends to information and ideas that "offend, shock or disturb the State or any section of the population" (see the Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 23, § 49; the Castells v. Spain judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, pp. 22-23, § 42; the Jersild v. Denmark judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 26, § 37; and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I), this is always subject to paragraph 2. Those invoking Article 10 must not overstep certain bounds.
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23168/94

  Although the protection of Article 10 extends to information and ideas that "offend, shock or disturb the State or any section of the population" (see the Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 23, § 49; the Castells v. Spain judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, pp. 22-23, § 42; the Jersild v. Denmark judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 26, § 37; and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I), this is always subject to paragraph 2. Those invoking Article 10 must not overstep certain bounds.
• EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84

  MÜLLER AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23168/94

  In that connection, the Court observes that Article 10 includes freedom of artistic expression - notably within freedom to receive and impart information and ideas - which affords the opportunity to take part in the public exchange of cultural, political and social information and ideas of all kinds (see, mutatis mutandis, the Müller and Others v. Switzerland judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, p. 19, § 27).

• EuGH, 29.07.2019 - C-476/17

  Pelham u.a. - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Urheberrecht und verwandte …

  Dieses Recht muss nämlich gegen die anderen Grundrechte abgewogen werden, darunter die durch Art. 13 der Charta garantierte Freiheit der Kunst, die es ermöglicht, am öffentlichen Austausch von kulturellen, politischen und sozialen Informationen und Ideen aller Art teilzuhaben, weil sie zur Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung gehört, die durch Art. 11 der Charta und Art. 10 Abs. 1 der am 4. November 1950 in Rom unterzeichneten Europäischen Konvention zum Schutz der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten geschützt ist (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 24. Mai 1988, Müller u. a./Schweiz, CE:ECHR:1988:0524JUD001073784, § 27, EGMR, 8. Juli 1999, Karata?Ÿ/Türkei, CE:ECHR:1999:0708JUD002316894, § 49).
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 27510/08

  Leugnung des Völkermords an Armeniern von Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt

  Examples include Karatas v. Turkey ([GC], no. 23168/94, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1999-IV), where the fact that the statements had been made through poetry rather than in the mass media led to the conclusion that the interference could not be justified by the special security context otherwise existing in the case; Féret (cited above, § 76), where the statements had been made on electoral leaflets, which had enhanced the effect of the discriminatory and hateful message that they were conveying; Gündüz (cited above, §§ 43-44), where the statements had been made in the course of a deliberately pluralistic televised debate, which had reduced their negative effect; Fáber (cited above, §§ 44-45), where the statement had consisted in the mere peaceful holding of a flag next to a rally, which had had a very limited, in any, effect on the course of that rally; Vona (cited above, §§ 64-69), where the statement had consisted in military-style marches in villages with large Roma populations, which, given the historical context in Hungary, had carried sinister connotations; and Vejdeland and Others (cited above, § 56), where the statements had been made on leaflets left in the lockers of secondary school students.
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  S'agissant de la création littéraire - ce qui est le cas en l'espèce - la Cour a appliqué dans l'arrêt Karatas c. Turquie ([GC], no 23168/94, § 49, CEDH 1999-IV) l'article 10 de la Convention dans le domaine de la poésie: « L'ouvrage litigieux contient des poèmes qui, à travers un style souvent pathétique et de nombreuses métaphores, appellent au sacrifice pour le «Kurdistan» et contiennent des passages très agressifs à l'égard du pouvoir turc.

 
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 15.07.2021 - C-401/19

  Generalanwalt Saugmandsgaard Øe: Art. 17 der Richtlinie 2019/790 über das …

  Vgl. u. a. EGMR, 24. Mai 1988, Müller u. a./Schweiz (CE:ECHR:1988:0524JUD001073784, § 27), und EGMR, 8. Juli 1999, Karata?Ÿ/Türkei (CE:ECHR:1999:0708JUD002316894, § 49).
• EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93

  OZGUR GUNDEM c. TURQUIE

  Consequently, it cannot make an award under this head (see Rule 60 § 2 of the Rules of Court)." (Karatas v. Turkey [GC], no. 23168/94, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 22479/93

  ÖZTÜRK v. TURKEY

  On 11 December 1998 the President of the Court, Mr L. Wildhaber, decided that, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, the instant case should be referred to the Grand Chamber that had been constituted to hear thirteen other cases against Turkey, namely: Karatas v. Turkey (application no. 23168/94); Arslan v. Turkey (no. 23462/94); Polat v. Turkey (no. 23500/94); Ceylan v. Turkey (no. 23556/94); OkçuoÄ?lu v. Turkey (no. 24246/94); Gerger v. Turkey (no. 24919/94); ErdoÄ?du and Ä°nce v. Turkey (nos. 25067/94 and 25068/94); Baskaya and OkçuoÄ?lu v. Turkey (nos. 23536/94 and 24408/94); Sürek and Özdemir v. Turkey (nos. 23927/94 and 24277/94); Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) (no. 26682/95); Sürek v. Turkey (no. 2) (no. 24122/94); Sürek v. Turkey (no. 3) (no. 24735/94) and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 4) (no. 24762/94).

  The Court reiterates the fundamental principles underlying its judgments relating to Article 10, as set out most recently in thirteen other cases against Turkey (see paragraph 4 above and, among other authorities, Karatas v. Turkey [GC], no. 23168/94, § 48, ECHR 1999-IV).

• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12

  Mariya Alekhina u.a. ./. Russland - "Pussy Riot"-Urteil verletzt Meinungsfreiheit

  Examples include Karatas v. Turkey ([GC], no. 23168/94, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1999-IV), where the fact that the statements in question had been made through poetry rather than in the media led to the conclusion that the interference could not be justified by the special security context otherwise existing in the case; Féret (cited above, § 76), where the medium was electoral leaflets, which had enhanced the effect of the discriminatory and hateful message that they were conveying; Gündüz (cited above, §§ 43-44), which involved statements made in the course of a deliberately pluralistic televised debate, which had reduced their negative effect; Fáber (cited above, §§ 44-45), where the statement had consisted in the mere peaceful holding of a flag next to a rally, which had had a very limited effect, if any at all, on the course of the rally; Vona (cited above, §§ 64-69), where the statement had involved military-style marches in villages with large Roma populations, which, given the historical context in Hungary, had carried sinister connotations; and Vejdeland and Others (cited above, § 56), where the statements had been made on leaflets left in the lockers of secondary school students.
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 3752/11

  ARSLAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  In its judgment, the Ankara Assize Court referred to Article 10 of the Convention as well as to the Court's judgment in the case of Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) ([GC], no. 26682/95, ECHR 1999-IV) and the report of the European Commission of Human Rights in the case of Karatas v. Turkey (no. 23168/94, Commission's report of 11 December 1997).

  Lastly, the Court notes the severity of the penalty imposed on the applicants, that is to say ten months" imprisonment, and in the case of Ahmet Dogan even twenty months" imprisonment, which the applicants served (see Karatas v. Turkey [GC], no. 23168/94, § 53, ECHR 1999-IV).

• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 10851/13

  KIRÁLY AND DÖMÖTÖR v. HUNGARY

  The key factors in the Court's assessment were whether the statements had been made against a tense political or social background (see Zana v. Turkey, 25 November 1997, §§ 57-60, Reports 1997-VII; Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, §§ 52 and 62, ECHR 1999-IV; Soulas and Others v. France, no. 15948/03, § 33, 10 July 2008, and Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, §§ 66 and 76, 16 July 2009), whether the statements, fairly construed and seen in their immediate or wider context, could have been seen as a direct or indirect call for violence or as a justification for violence, hatred or intolerance (see, among other authorities, Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 64, ECHR 2000-III and Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, §§ 52 and 56-58), and the manner in which the statements had been made, and their capacity - direct or indirect - to lead to harmful consequences (see Karatas v. Turkey ([GC], no. 23168/94, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 72624/10

  TSALKITZIS v. GREECE (No. 2)

  In particular, in the circumstances of the present case, the Court's task is to ascertain in concreto whether the proceedings as a whole, including the refusal of the applicant's request to suspend the proceedings, infringed the applicant's right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention in view of the Court's judgment of 2006 (see, mutatis mutandis, Karatas v. Turkey [GC], no. 23168/94, § 62, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 43807/07

  KILIÇ AND EREN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 25067/94

  ERDOGDU ET INCE c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 40631/11

  ADIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02

  GÜL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 11976/03

  DEMIREL AND ATES (NO. 3) v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 37685/02

  ÜSTÜN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 30007/96

  HALIS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 58756/00

  KAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 50934/99

  KOÇ AND TAMBAS v. TURKEY