Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CUMHURIYET VAKFI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (32)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 28255/07

  This general rule, moreover, translates into specific obligations under Article 10 of the Convention, by requiring domestic courts to provide "relevant" and "sufficient" reasons for an interference (see, for example, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-IV; Obukhova v. Russia, no. 34736/03, § 25, 8 January 2009; and Sapan v. Turkey, no. 44102/04, §§ 40-42, 8 June 2010).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00

  ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 28255/07

  While Article 10 of the Convention does not prohibit interim injunctions, even where they entail prior restraints on publication, the apparent dangers inherent in such measures call for the most careful scrutiny by the Court (see Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 42, ECHR 2004-IV), including a close examination of the procedural safeguards embedded in the system to prevent arbitrary encroachments upon the freedom of expression (see, mutatis mutandis, Steel and Morris, cited above, § 95).
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 19997/02

  BOLDEA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 28255/07

  Another procedural problem tainting the interim injunction decision in question was the failure of the domestic court to provide any reasoning for its decision, either when granting the injunction or when refusing the ensuing request for it to be lifted (see, mutatis mutandis, Boldea v. Romania, no. 19997/02, § 61, 15 February 2007; and Nur Radyo ve Televizyon Yayıncılığı A.S. v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 42284/05, §§ 49-50, 12 October 2010).

• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 42284/05

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 28255/07

  Another procedural problem tainting the interim injunction decision in question was the failure of the domestic court to provide any reasoning for its decision, either when granting the injunction or when refusing the ensuing request for it to be lifted (see, mutatis mutandis, Boldea v. Romania, no. 19997/02, § 61, 15 February 2007; and Nur Radyo ve Televizyon Yayıncılığı A.S. v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 42284/05, §§ 49-50, 12 October 2010).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 28255/07

  In particular, the Court must determine whether the measure taken was "proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued" (see The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 62, Series A no. 30; and Chauvy and Others v. France, no. 64915/01, § 70, ECHR 2004-VI).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 28255/07

  Although freedom of expression may be subject to exceptions, as indicated in the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention, these must be narrowly interpreted and the "necessity" of any restriction in a democratic society must be convincingly established (see Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 28255/07

  The Contracting States have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether such a need exists, but it goes hand in hand with European supervision (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 58, ECHR 1999-III; and CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 88, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 2668/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 28255/07

  However, having regard to its examination of these matters below from the point of view of the "necessity" of the measure (see paragraphs 60-76), including as regards the clarity of the scope of the interim injunction in question (see paragraphs 62 and 63), the Court considers that it is not required to reach a final conclusion on the lawfulness issue (see Association Ekin, cited above, § 46; and Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, § 116, 14 September 2010).
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 28255/07

  However, it also refers to the quality of the law, which requires that legal norms should be accessible to the person concerned, their consequences foreseeable and their compatibility with the rule of law ensured (see, among others, Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 44, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 67336/01

  DANILENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 28255/07

  Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the Court's list of cases in so far as it relates to the first applicant, Mr Ä°lhan Selçuk, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention (see, amongst others, Danilenkov and Others v. Russia, no. 67336/01, §§ 109-11, 30 July 2009 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 51151/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 8921/05

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 15.07.2021 - C-401/19

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

  {FN:189} Vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, Ahmet Yildirim/Türkei, § 64, EGMR, 8. Oktober 2013, Cumhuriyet Vakfi/Türkei (CE:ECHR:2013:1008JUD002825507, § 61), EGMR, 1. Dezember 2015, Cengiz u. a./Türkei (CE:ECHR:2015:1201JUD004822610, § 62), und EGMR, Kablis/Russland, § 97. Vgl. entsprechend auch Urteile vom 8. April 2014, Digital Rights Ireland u. a. (…C-293/12 und C-594/12, EU:C:2014:238, Rn. 54, 55 und 65), vom 21. Dezember 2016, Tele2 Sverige und Watson u. a. (…C-203/15 und C-698/15, EU:C:2016:970, Rn. 117), und vom 2. März 2021, Prokuratuur (Voraussetzungen für den Zugang zu Daten über elektronische Kommunikationen) (…C-746/18, EU:C:2021:152, Rn. 48).
• EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 28470/12

  NIT S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  In this connection, the fairness of proceedings and the procedural guarantees afforded are factors which in some circumstances may have to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with freedom of expression (see Karácsony and Others, cited above, §§ 133-36, with further references and case summaries, notably Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 61, ECHR 2001-VIII, where the practical effectiveness of a full review was found to have been undermined by the excessive length of the proceedings; and Cumhuriyet Vakfi and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, §§ 62-74, 8 October 2013, where the safeguards were found to be insufficient having regard to (i) the exceptionally wide scope of an injunction; (ii) its excessive duration; (iii) the failure of the domestic court to give any reasoning for the measure; and (iv) the applicants' inability to contest it before it had been granted).
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 42461/13

  KARÁCSONY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  The fairness of the proceedings and the procedural guarantees afforded are factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with respect to the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 (see Association Ekin, cited above, § 61; Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 95, ECHR 2005-II; Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no. 39128/05, §§ 45-46, 20 October 2009; Igor Kabanov v. Russia, no. 8921/05, § 52, 3 February 2011; and Cumhuriyet Vakfı and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, § 59, 8 October 2013).

• EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 41226/09

  Türkei verurteilt: Nicht jeder ist ein Terrorist

  In addition, the legal norms should be compatible with the rule of law (see, for example, Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 44, ECHR 2001-VIII; Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 57, ECHR 2012; and Cumhuriyet Vakfı and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, § 50, 8 October 2013).
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 17526/10

  GÜLCÜ v. TURKEY

  Besides, the legal norms should be compatible with the rule of law (see, for example, Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 44, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Cumhuriyet Vakfı and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, § 50, 8 October 2013).
• EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 29994/02

  [ENG]

  In doing so, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities, basing themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts, applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention (see Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 91, ECHR 2004-XI, and Cumhuriyet Vakfı and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, § 59, 8 October 2013).
• EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 44561/11

  RID NOVAYA GAZETA AND ZAO NOVAYA GAZETA v. RUSSIA

  Therefore, the "interference" in the present case was not convincingly shown to have been "necessary in a democratic society" (see Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, § 24, 26 January 2017; Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 21666/09, § 54, 7 January 2014; Cumhuriyet Vakfı and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, §§ 67-69, 8 October 2013; and Novaya Gazeta and Milashina, cited above, § 75).
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 25147/09

  TERENTYEV v. RUSSIA

  Faced with the domestic courts' failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the interference, the Court finds that the domestic courts cannot be said to have "applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10" or to have "based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts" (see Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 21666/09, § 54, 7 January 2014; Cumhuriyet Vakfı and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, §§ 67-69, 8 October 2013; OOO Ivpress and Others, cited above, § 71; and Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no. 39128/05, §§ 47-49, 20 October 2009).
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 60087/10

  ÖGRÜ v. TURKEY

  Ainsi, la Cour a déjà conclu à une violation de l'article 10 de la Convention lorsque la mesure limitant la liberté d'expression était d'une portée incertaine ou fondée sur des motifs insuffisamment précis, et que son application n'avait pas été contrôlée de manière adéquate par le juge (voir, Association Ekin c. France, no 39288/98, § 58, CEDH 2001-VIII, Saygılı et Seyman c. Turquie, no 51041/99, §§ 24-25, 27 juin 2006, Lombardi Vallauri c. Italie, no 39128/05, § 46, 20 octobre 2009, et Cumhuriyet Vakfı et autres c. Turquie, no 28255/07, § 59, 8 octobre 2013).
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 42168/06

  DMITRIYEVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  This obligation enables individuals, amongst other things, to learn about and contest the reasons behind a court decision that limits their freedom of expression or freedom of assembly, and thus offers an important procedural safeguard against arbitrary interference with the rights protected under Article 10 of the Convention (see Cumhuriyet Vakfı and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, §§ 67-68, 8 October 2013, and Gülcü v. Turkey, no. 17526/10, § 114, 19 January 2016).
• EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 50171/09

  BELGE v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 35493/13

  SZANYI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 22.06.2023 - 10794/12

  GERMANO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 46713/10

  BAKIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 04.05.2021 - 41139/15

  AKDENIZ ET ALTIPARMAK c. TURQUIE et 1 autre affaire
• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 22287/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 6875/05

  SAYGILI AND KARATAS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 45083/06

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND MILASHINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 44294/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 57316/10

  IMRET c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 16901/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 44357/13

  SZÉL AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 41055/12

  ASSOTSIATSIYA NGO GOLOS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 39748/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 34288/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.11.2019 - 68995/13

  SCHWEIZERISCHE RADIO- UND FERNSEHGESELLSCHAFT ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 67783/13

  GASPARI v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 12261/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 15355/14

  KRYSZTOFIAK v. POLAND
• EGMR - 22950/23 (anhängig)

  MEDIAREY HUNGARY SERVICES ZRT. v. HUNGARY
• EGMR - 56491/18 (anhängig)

  NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR - 23084/18 (anhängig)

  FUTEBOL CLUBE DO PORTO AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL