Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KINIK v. TURKEY

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KiNiK v. TURKEY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 17526/10

  GÜLCÜ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 39047/11

  As to the merits, the Court notes at the outset that it has already found - in cases concerning Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention where the pronouncement of the applicants' convictions had been suspended - an interference nonetheless with the applicants' rights guaranteed under the above-mentioned Articles (see Şükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey, nos. 49197/06 and 4 others, § 44, 22 January 2013; Gülcü v. Turkey, no. 17526/10, §§ 98 - 102, 19 January 2016; and Fatih Taş v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 6813/09, § 15, 10 October 2017).

  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. 17526/10, §§ 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 - 39047/11

  It 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 - 39047/11

  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 - 39047/11

  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. 17526/10, §§ 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, 31.03.2015 - 51962/12

  ÖNER AND TÜRK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 39047/11

  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. 17526/10, §§ 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 - 39047/11

  Nonetheless, the Court has already dismissed similar objections by the respondent Government (see Öner Aktaş v. Turkey, no. 59860/10, § 29, 29 October 2013; 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 - 39047/11

  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. 17526/10, §§ 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 - 39047/11

  Nonetheless, the Court has already dismissed similar objections by the respondent Government (see Öner Aktaş v. Turkey, no. 59860/10, § 29, 29 October 2013; 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 - 39047/11

  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. 17526/10, §§ 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, 29.10.2013 - 59860/10

  AKTAS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 39047/11

  Nonetheless, the Court has already dismissed similar objections by the respondent Government (see Öner Aktaş v. Turkey, no. 59860/10, § 29, 29 October 2013; 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, 13.02.2018 - 57069/09

  ZENGIN AND ÇAKIR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 33347/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 16.10.2019 - 6813/09

  FATIH TAS CONTRE LA TURQUIE (N° 2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• 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).