Weitere Entscheidung unten: EKMR, 14.10.1996

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23168/94   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/1999,22050
EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23168/94 (https://dejure.org/1999,22050)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08.07.1999 - 23168/94 (https://dejure.org/1999,22050)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08. Juli 1999 - 23168/94 (https://dejure.org/1999,22050)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1999,22050) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

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

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (22)

  • 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??/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

    Hence the obligation on the State not to encroach unduly on their freedom of expression (see, among other authorities, Karatas v. Turkey [GC], no. 23168/94, § 49, ECHR 1999-IV, and Alınak v. Turkey, no. 40287/98, §§ 41-43, 29 March 2005).

    In the area of literary creation - as in the present case - the Court applied Article 10 of the Convention to the medium of poetry in Karatas v. Turkey ([GC], no. 23168/94, ECHR 1999-IV): "The work in issue contained poems which, through the frequent use of pathos and metaphors, called for self-sacrifice for "Kurdistan" and included some particularly aggressive passages directed at the Turkish authorities.

  • 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, 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, 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, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

    SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

    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: 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. 2) (no. 24122/94); Sürek v. Turkey (no. 3) (no. 24735/94); and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 4) (no. 24762/94).
  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94

    CEYLAN c. TURQUIE

    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: Karatas v. Turkey (application no. 23168/94); Arslan v. Turkey (no. 23462/94); Polat v. Turkey (no. 23500/94); 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).
  • 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, 29.11.2011 - 43807/07

    KILIC AND EREN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24762/94

    SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 4)

  • EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 72624/10

    TSALKITZIS v. GREECE (No. 2)

  • EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 11976/03

    DEMIREL AND ATES (NO. 3) v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02

    GUL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 37685/02

    USTUN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24122/94

    SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 2)

  • EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 58756/00

    KAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 30007/96

    HALIS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24246/94

    OKÇUOGLU c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 50934/99

    KOC AND TAMBAS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23500/94

    POLAT c. TURQUIE

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.

Rechtsprechung
   EKMR, 14.10.1996 - 23168/94   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/1996,27074
EKMR, 14.10.1996 - 23168/94 (https://dejure.org/1996,27074)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 14.10.1996 - 23168/94 (https://dejure.org/1996,27074)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 14. Januar 1996 - 23168/94 (https://dejure.org/1996,27074)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1996,27074) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht