Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ERDOGDU v. TURKEY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion) Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ERDOGDU c. TURQUIE

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement) Violation de l'Art. 10 Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• IRIS Merlin (Kurzinformation)

  Jüngste Urteile zur Meinungsfreiheit. Rechtssachen Erdogdu gegen die Türkei und Constantinescu gegen Rumänien

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 23.01.1998 - 25723/94
• EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 25723/94

Wird zitiert von ... (19)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 25723/94

  The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention must be applied "with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism"; it is sufficient that the complaints intended to be made subsequently in Strasbourg should have been raised, "at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law", before the national authorities (see, among other authorities, Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I, and Civet v. France [GC], no. 29340/95, § 41, ECHR 1999-VI).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 25723/94

  While the press must not overstep the boundaries set, inter alia, for the protection of vital interests of the State such as the prevention of disorder or crime, it is nevertheless incumbent on the press, in accordance with its duties and responsibilities, to impart information and ideas on all matters of public interest, in particular political questions, including divisive ones (see also Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 59, ECHR 1999-IV, and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 3) [GC], no. 24735/94, § 38, 8 July 1999, unreported).
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 31457/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 25723/94

  In that connection the Court reiterates first of all the fundamental principles underlying its case-law on the subject (see, among other authorities, Fressoz and Roire cited above, § 45; Öztürk cited above, § 64; Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII; and the most recent authority, News Verlags GmbH & CoKG v. Austria, no. 31457/96, § 52, ECHR 2000-I).

• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 25723/94

  The burden of proof is on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that an effective remedy was available in theory and in practice at the relevant time; that is to say, that the remedy was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaint and offered reasonable prospects of success (see V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 57, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23536/94

  Strafrechtliche Verfolgung auf Grund der Veröffentlichung eines Buches mit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 25723/94

  The Court reiterates that it has already examined, from the standpoint of Articles 7 and 10 § 2 of the Convention, the issue of "legality" and "foreseeability" of a conviction imposed under section 8 of Law no. 3713 and held that it satisfied the requirements set forth in the two provisions of the Convention referred to above (Başkaya and Okçuoğlu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 23536/94 and 24408/94, §§ 40, 43 and 49, ECHR 1999-IV; for the general principles on the subject see, inter alia, Öztürk cited above, §§ 54-55, and Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 31, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 25723/94

  In that connection the Court reiterates first of all the fundamental principles underlying its case-law on the subject (see, among other authorities, Fressoz and Roire cited above, § 45; Öztürk cited above, § 64; Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII; and the most recent authority, News Verlags GmbH & CoKG v. Austria, no. 31457/96, § 52, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 22479/93

  ÖZTÜRK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 25723/94

  Before the Court, however, he made no reference to Article 9 and referred only once to Article 7, and then in support of his principal complaint based on Article 10. In the circumstances, he cannot be considered to have maintained either of those complaints before the Court, which can see no reason to examine them of its own motion (see, mutatis mutandis, Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 40, ECHR 1999-VI).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23927/94

  SÜREK AND ÖZDEMIR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 25723/94

  The Court also acknowledges that in situations of conflict and tension particular caution is called for on the part of the national authorities when consideration is being given to the publication of opinions which advocate recourse to violence against the State lest the media become a vehicle for the dissemination of hate speech and the promotion of violence (see, mutatis mutandis, Sürek and Özdemir v. Turkey [GC], nos. 23927/94 and 24277/94, § 63, 8 July 1999, unreported).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 25594/94

  HASHMAN AND HARRUP v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 25723/94

  The Court reiterates that it has already examined, from the standpoint of Articles 7 and 10 § 2 of the Convention, the issue of "legality" and "foreseeability" of a conviction imposed under section 8 of Law no. 3713 and held that it satisfied the requirements set forth in the two provisions of the Convention referred to above (Başkaya and Okçuoğlu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 23536/94 and 24408/94, §§ 40, 43 and 49, ECHR 1999-IV; for the general principles on the subject see, inter alia, Öztürk cited above, §§ 54-55, and Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 31, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 04.05.1999 - 41974/98

  KUCHERENKO contre l'UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 25723/94

  It is not therefore a domestic remedy directly accessible to persons triable in the courts (see the Çıraklar v. Turkey judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII, pp. 3070-71, §§ 29-32, and also Kucherenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 41974/98, 4 May 1999, unreported).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 45959/09

  MITROV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  As to whether it was possible to make a similar representation to other competent bodies, the Court notes that this remedy is not directly accessible to the accused (see, mutatis mutandis, Erdoğdu v. Turkey, no. 25723/94, § 34, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 06.03.2003 - 58278/00

  ZDANOKA contre la LETTONIE

  L'exception du Gouvernement est donc dénuée de fondement sur ce point (voir Erdoğdu c. Turquie, no 25723/94, §§ 38-41, CEDH 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 25.02.2014 - 651/10

  [FRE]

  Qui plus est, s'agissant de ce recours en rectification d'arrêt qui existait avant le 1er juin 2005, 1a Cour rappelle sa jurisprudence établie selon laquelle ce recours ne constituait pas en droit pénal turc une voie de recours directement accessible aux justiciables (voir, parmi de nombreux autres, ErdoÄŸdu c. Turquie, no 25723/94, § 34, CEDH 2000-VI) et l'éventuelle saisine du procureur général par un requérant dans ce cadre ne pouvait donc passer pour l'exercice d'une voie de droit à épuiser en vertu de l'article 35 de la Convention.

• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 11976/03

  [ENG]

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, the following judgments: Sener v. Turkey, no. 26680/95, §§ 39-43, 18 July 2000; Fressoz and Roire v. France ([GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I; Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, §§ 41-42, Series A no. 103; and ErdoÄŸdu v. Turkey, no. 25723/94, §§ 51-53, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 13.03.2001 - 33179/96

  KARATAS contre la TURQUIE

  (voir en dernier lieu, Erdoğdu c. Turquie, n° 25723/94, § 34, CEDH 2000).
• EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 48098/99

  MEHMET OKÇUOGLU c. TURQUIE

  Au regard de l'article 10 de la Convention, la Cour a déjà jugé que de telles circonstances avaient pour effet de censurer partiellement les activités des intéressés et de limiter grandement leur aptitude à exposer publiquement une critique qui a sa place dans un débat public et dont l'existence ne peut être niée (voir Hertel c. Suisse, arrêt du 25 août 1998, Recueil 1998-VI, pp. 2331-2332, § 50, ErdoÄŸdu c. Turquie, no 25723/94, § 72, CEDH 2000-VI, et Çetin c. Turquie, no 42779/98, § 25, 20 décembre 2005).
• EGMR, 15.07.2005 - 61650/00

  CELIK c. TURQUIE

  Or, elle observe qu'en droit pénal turc, un recours en rectification d'arrêt ne constitue pas un moyen de droit interne directement accessible au requérant (voir, entre autres, Erdoğdu c. Turquie, no 25723/94, § 34, CEDH 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 23.10.2003 - 53014/99

  PEKER c. TURQUIE

  Or, elle rappelle qu'en droit pénal turc, un recours en rectification d'arrêt ne constitue pas un moyen de droit interne directement accessible aux justiciables (voir Erdoğdu c. Turquie, no 25723/94, § 34, CEDH 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 13.05.2004 - 47796/99

  EROL contre la TURQUIE

  (Erdoğdu c. Turquie, no 25723/94, § 34, CEDH 2000-VI, et Erol c. Turquie (déc.), no 35076/97, 17 mai 2001).
• EGMR, 13.05.2004 - 53916/00

  GUNES contre la TURQUIE

  Certes, la Cour convient que cette non-survenance du jugement n'est que la conséquence de l'arrivée du terme du sursis et notamment de l'absence de commission par la requérante d'une infraction de même type (voir, entre autres, Erdoğdu c. Turquie, no 25723/94, § 72, CEDH 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 17.05.2001 - 35076/97

  EROL contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 40965/10

  AKCICEK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 33667/05

  SAYGILI AND BILGIÇ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 53047/99

  BIRDAL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 53918/00

  ONDER ET ZEYDAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 46733/99

  DICLE c. TURQUIE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 10.02.2005 - 21824/02

  ANDRIANESIS ET AUTRES c. GRECE
• EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 19841/02

  AGATHOS ET AUTRES c. GRECE
• EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 32985/96

  ALTAN contre la TURQUIE