Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VARHAN v. TURKEY

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VARHAN v. TURKEY

  Art. 10 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 51962/12

  ÖNER AND TÜRK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 2433/12

  The Court notes at the outset that it has already examined and dismissed an identical objection regarding the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies by the respondent Government (see Öner and Türk v. Turkey, no. 51962/12, §§ 14-18, 31 March 2015).

  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, § §§ 110-117, 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, 01.02.2011 - 16853/05

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 2433/12

  The Court is also prepared to accept that, in the present case, the national authorities may be considered to have pursued the legitimate aims of protecting national security and preventing disorder and crime (see Faruk Temel v. Turkey, no. 16853/05, § 52, 1 February 2011).
• EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 50171/09

  BELGE v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 2433/12

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

• EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 43807/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 2433/12

  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, § §§ 110-117, 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, 10.11.2015 - 8077/08

  KAÇMAZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 2433/12

  Nonetheless, the Court has already rejected similar objections by the respondent Government (see Atılgan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 14495/11, 14531/11, 26274/11, 78923/11, 8408/12, 11848/12, 12078/12, 12103/12, 14745/12, 21910/12 and 41087/12, § 12, 27 January 2015, and Şakir Kaçmaz v. Turkey, no. 8077/08, § 62, 10 November 2015).
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 13304/03

  SAVGIN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 2433/12

  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, § §§ 110-117, 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, 09.12.2015 - 14495/11

  ATILGAN ET AUTRES CONTRE LA TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 2433/12

  Nonetheless, the Court has already rejected similar objections by the respondent Government (see Atılgan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 14495/11, 14531/11, 26274/11, 78923/11, 8408/12, 11848/12, 12078/12, 12103/12, 14745/12, 21910/12 and 41087/12, § 12, 27 January 2015, and Şakir Kaçmaz v. Turkey, no. 8077/08, § 62, 10 November 2015).
• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 36643/09

  YIGIN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 2433/12

  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, § §§ 110-117, 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 - 2433/12

  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, § §§ 110-117, 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]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 2433/12

  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, § §§ 110-117, 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).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 64375/12

  DÜZEL AGAINST TURKEY AND 20 OTHER CASES

  2433/12.
• 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).
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 2257/11

  BAKIR v. TURKEY

  The Court reiterates that it has previously examined complaints relating to issues that were similar to those in the present case and has found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see Kılıç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, §§ 20-31, 29 November 2011; Gül and Others, cited above, §§ 32-45; Bahçeci and Turan v. Turkey, no. 33340/03, §§ 24-34, 16 June 2009; and in particular Belge v. Turkey, no. 50171/09, §§ 17 and 35, 6 December 2016, and Varhan v. Turkey ([Committee], no. 2433/12, §§ 16-24, 25 September 2018), where the Court found a violation on account of the applicant's conviction for disseminating propaganda on the basis of waving a green, yellow and red flag symbolising the PKK and chanting slogans).