Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 27520/07 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,56439) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ALTUG TANER AKÇAM v. TURKEY
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (victim) Violation of Art. 10 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient ...
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- lehofer.at (Kurzinformation und Auszüge)
"Herabwürdigung des Türkentums" - Stress wegen Strafdrohung als Verletzung des Art 10 EMRK
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
(Verfahrensmitteilung)
Akçam v. Turkey
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (43) Zitiert selbst (20)
- EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71
Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 27520/07
In this connection, the Court reiterates its established jurisprudence that in order to claim to be the victim of a violation, a person must be directly affected by the impugned measure (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, §§ 239-240, Series A, no. 25; Eckle, cited above; and Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28). - EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 27520/07
Accordingly, many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague and whose interpretation and application are a question of practice (see Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 49, Series A no. 30, and Flinkkilä and Others v. Finland, no. 25576/04, § 65, 6 April 2010). - EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 27798/95
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 27520/07
It follows therefore that Article 301 of the Criminal Code does not meet the "quality of law" required by the Court's settled case-law, since its unacceptably broad terms result in a lack of foreseeability as to its effects (see Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 50, ECHR 2000-II; and Vajnai v. Hungary, no. 33629/06, § 46, 8 July 2008).
- EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 27520/07
Furthermore, it is also open to a person to contend that a law violates his rights, in the absence of an individual measure of implementation, if he is required either to modify his conduct because of it or risk being prosecuted (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 41, Series A no. 45; Norris, cited above, § 31, and Bowman, cited above) or if he is a member of a class of people who risk being directly affected by the legislation (see Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 42, Series A no. 112, and Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, 29 October 1992, Series A no. 246-A). - EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 27520/07
Furthermore, it is also open to a person to contend that a law violates his rights, in the absence of an individual measure of implementation, if he is required either to modify his conduct because of it or risk being prosecuted (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 41, Series A no. 45; Norris, cited above, § 31, and Bowman, cited above) or if he is a member of a class of people who risk being directly affected by the legislation (see Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 42, Series A no. 112, and Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, 29 October 1992, Series A no. 246-A). - EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 27520/07
Furthermore, it is also open to a person to contend that a law violates his rights, in the absence of an individual measure of implementation, if he is required either to modify his conduct because of it or risk being prosecuted (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 41, Series A no. 45; Norris, cited above, § 31, and Bowman, cited above) or if he is a member of a class of people who risk being directly affected by the legislation (see Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 42, Series A no. 112, and Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, 29 October 1992, Series A no. 246-A). - EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98
EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 27520/07
The Court further notes the chilling effect that the fear of sanction has on the exercise of freedom of expression, even in the event of an eventual acquittal, considering the likelihood of such fear discouraging one from making similar statements in the future (see, mutatis mutandis, Lombardo and Others v. Malta, no. 7333/06, § 61, 24 April 2007; Association Ekin v. France (dec.), no. 39288/98, 18 January 2000; and Aktan v. Turkey, no. 20863/02, §§ 27-28, 23 September 2008). - EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 25576/04
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 27520/07
Accordingly, many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague and whose interpretation and application are a question of practice (see Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 49, Series A no. 30, and Flinkkilä and Others v. Finland, no. 25576/04, § 65, 6 April 2010). - EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 20863/02
AKTAN c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 27520/07
The Court further notes the chilling effect that the fear of sanction has on the exercise of freedom of expression, even in the event of an eventual acquittal, considering the likelihood of such fear discouraging one from making similar statements in the future (see, mutatis mutandis, Lombardo and Others v. Malta, no. 7333/06, § 61, 24 April 2007; Association Ekin v. France (dec.), no. 39288/98, 18 January 2000; and Aktan v. Turkey, no. 20863/02, §§ 27-28, 23 September 2008). - EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 27520/07
Relying particularly on the Court's judgments in the cases of Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom (25 February 1982, Series A no. 48), Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), (nos. 3002/03 and 23676/03, ECHR 2009-...), Marckx v. Belgium (13 June 1979, § 330, Series A no. 31), Norris v. Ireland (26 October 1988, Series A no. 142), Bowman v. the United Kingdom (no. 24839/94, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I), the applicant submitted that Article 34 entitled individuals to contend that a law violated their rights in and of itself in the absence of an individual measure of implementation if they ran the risk of being directly affected by it. - EGMR, 25.02.1982 - 7511/76
- EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 2668/07
[FRE]
- EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 3002/03
TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1 et N° 2)
- EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83
- EKMR, 04.12.1995 - 28204/95
TAUIRA ET 18 AUTRES contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 06.11.2001 - 53430/99
FEDERATION CHRETIENNE DES TEMOINS DE JEHOVAH DE FRANCE v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 55185/08
ADA ROSSI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 7380/02
ARABADJIEV ET STAVREV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 18.11.2008 - 38714/04
HUMARTAS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 66286/01
EST VIDEO COMMUNICATION SA et AUTRES contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 27510/08
Leugnung des Völkermords an Armeniern von Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt
Dans l'affaire Altuğ Taner Akçam c. Turquie (no 27520/07, 25 octobre 2011), le requérant, un professeur d'histoire qui avait beaucoup publié sur les événements survenus en 1915 et les années suivantes et avait été l'objet de plusieurs enquêtes pénales - toutes classées sans suite - à propos d'articles de presse dans lesquels il critiquait les procédures pénales ouvertes contre Hrant Dink (paragraphe 222 ci-dessus), s'était insurgé contre l'existence de l'article 301 du code pénal turc, qui selon lui l'exposait à tout moment à des poursuites pour ses travaux universitaires sur la question arménienne. - EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10
Urteil gegen Türkei wegen Online-Zensur
Selon la jurisprudence constante de la Cour, une norme est « prévisible'lorsqu'elle est rédigée avec assez de précision pour permettre à toute personne, en s'entourant au besoin de conseils éclairés, de régler sa conduite (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, RTBF c. Belgique, no 50084/06, § 103, CEDH 2011, AltuÄŸ Taner Akçam c. Turquie, no 27520/07, § 87, 25 octobre 2011). - EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 48226/10
Türkei wegen YouTube-Blockade verurteilt
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.12.2013 - C-293/12
Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Cruz Villalón ist die Richtlinie über die …
US Supreme Court, Wiemann v. Updegraff, 344 US 183 (1952); EGMR, Urteil vom 25. Oktober 2011, Altuğ Taner Akçam/Türkei, Beschwerde Nr. 27520/07, § 81; vgl. u. a. "The Chilling Effect in Constitutional Law", Columbia Law Review, 1969, Bd. 69, Nr. 5, S. 808. - EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 16538/17
Türkei wegen Haft für Journalisten verurteilt
The Court refers first of all to its case-law to the effect that certain circumstances with a chilling effect on freedom of expression will confer on applicants who have yet to be convicted in a final judgment the status of victims of an interference with the freedom in question (see Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07 and 4 others, § 105, 14 September 2010; Altuğ Taner Akçam v. Turkey, no. 27520/07, §§ 70-75, 25 October 2011; and Nedim Şener v. Turkey, no. 38270/11, § 94, 8 July 2014). - EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 13237/17
Türkei wegen Haft für Journalisten verurteilt
La Cour se réfère tout d'abord à sa jurisprudence selon laquelle certaines circonstances ayant un effet dissuasif sur la liberté d'expression procurent aux justiciables - qui n'ont pas encore été condamnés par un arrêt définitif - la qualité de victime d'une ingérence à ladite liberté (Dink c. Turquie, nos 2668/07 et 4 autres, § 105, 14 septembre 2010, Altuğ Taner Akçam c. Turquie, no 27520/07, §§ 70-75, 25 octobre 2011, et Nedim Şener c. Turquie, no 38270/11, § 94, 8 juillet 2014). - EGMR, 25.06.2024 - 20958/14
EGMR zur Lage auf der Krim: Russland begeht schwere Menschenrechtsverletzungen
(v) criminal investigations (see Altuğ Taner Akçam v. Turkey, no. 27520/07, § 75, 25 October 2011, concerning the mere potential of being subjected to investigation); pre-trial detention (see Ragıp Zarakolu v. Turkey, no. 15064/12, § 79, 15 September 2020, and Sabuncu and Others v. Turkey, no. 23199/17, § 230, 10 November 2020); and conviction (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 40, ECHR 2007-IV, and Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, § 50, 19 April 2011). - EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 29680/05
[FRE]
Elle a aussi estimé que le fait de se trouver sous la menace de poursuites pénales à cause de plaintes fondées sur l'article 301 du code pénal turc - qui réprimait à l'époque entre autres le dénigrement de la turcité, notion vague- procurait à l'intéressé - non encore frappé de poursuites et encore moins d'une condamnation définitive - la qualité de victime d'une ingérence dans la liberté d'expression (voir Altug Taner Akçam c. Turquie (no 27520/07, §§ 70-75, 25 octobre 2011).Le seul des précédents cités par la majorité qui pourrait, à première vue, être pertinent aux fins de la présente affaire est l'arrêt Altug Taner Akçam c. Turquie (no 27520/07, §§ 70-75, 25 octobre 2011).
Altug Taner Akçam c. Turquie, no 27520/07, 25 octobre 2011, Dink c. Turquie, nos 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 et 7124/09, 14 septembre 2010, et Kayasu c. Turquie, no 64119/00 et 76292/01, § 106, 13 novembre 2008.
- EGMR, 06.10.2026 - 45738/22
UGUR c. TÜRKIYE
Rn. 59 The Court reiterates that certain circumstances with a chilling effect on freedom of expression will confer on applicants who have yet to be convicted in a final judgment the status of victims of an interference with the freedom in question (see Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07 and 4 others, § 105, 14 September 2010; Altuğ Taner Akçam v. Turkey, no. 27520/07, §§ 70-75, 25 October 2011; Nedim Şener v. Turkey, no. 38270/11, § 94, 8 July 2014; and Ahmet Hüsrev Altan v. Turkey, no. 13252/17, § 218, 13 April 2021). - EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 53413/11
SIK c. TURQUIE
Elle rappelle également avoir estimé que certaines circonstances ayant un effet dissuasif sur la liberté d'expression procurent aux intéressés - non encore frappés d'une condamnation définitive - la qualité de victime d'une ingérence à ladite liberté: par exemple, être sous la menace de poursuites pénales pour d'éventuels travaux dans un domaine considéré comme sensible par l'État ou par une partie de la population (AltuÄŸ Taner Akçam c. Turquie, no 27520/07, §§ 70-75, 25 octobre 2011) ou faire l'objet d'une condamnation au pénal non définitive conforme à la jurisprudence des juridictions nationales (Aktan c. Turquie, no 20863/02, § 27, 23 septembre 2008, Dink c. Turquie, nos 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 et 7124/09, § 105, 14 septembre 2010). - EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 29994/02
[ENG]
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 16.09.2021 - C-302/20
Autorité des marchés financiers - Vorabentscheidungsverfahren - Binnenmarkt für …
- EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 21181/19
TULEYA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 76521/12
EMINAGAOGLU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 10692/09
TERENTYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 38270/11
SENER c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 13252/17
EGMR verurteilt Türkei wegen Inhaftierung zweier Journalisten - EGMR verurteilt …
- EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 1484/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 05.02.2026 - 46238/20
MORAWIEC v. POLAND
- EGMR, 31.05.2022 - 208/18
U-Haft für türkischen Amnesty-Chef war rechtswidrig
- EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 72/17
TAS c. TURQUIE et 1 autre affaire
- EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 46232/10
TIMAKOV AND OOO ID RUBEZH v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
- EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 36944/07
KABOGLU ET ORAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 15064/12
ZARAKOLU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 52497/08
GÜRBÜZ c. TURQUIE et 6 autres affaires
- EGMR, 31.01.2023 - 43979/17
KILIÇ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 64375/12
DÜZEL AGAINST TURKEY AND 20 OTHER CASES
- EGMR, 12.11.2019 - 68995/13
SCHWEIZERISCHE RADIO- UND FERNSEHGESELLSCHAFT ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 44982/07
ÖNAL c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 42201/17
ÖGRETEN c. TURQUIE et 1 autre affaire
- EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 42168/06
DMITRIYEVSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.10.2024 - 4/18
YÜKSEK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 12385/15
YEFIMOV v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
- EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 6810/09
FATIH TAS c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 29483/09
GÜZEL v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 23.05.2023 - 30237/18
GAPO?...ENKO v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 47257/11
ÖZER c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 20.06.2017 - 4751/07
METIS YAYINCILIK LIMITED SIRKETI ET SÖKMEN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR - 18058/24 (anhängig)
ÇEVIK v. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 46519/13
BOZKURT AND ÜNSAL v. TURKEY
- EGMR - 25570/23 (anhängig)
KESKIN v. TÜRKİYE
- EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 42320/10
YURTSEVER c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 80959/17
PISKORSKI v. POLAND
dejure.org
Übersicht EGMR
Einloggen | Registrieren
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Externe Links öffnen jetzt in einem neuen Tab. Sie können dieses Verhalten auch auf Ihrer Einstellungsseite ändern.