Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 14+10, Art. 14, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Not necessary to examine Art. 14+10 Violation of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses award - ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ASSOCIATION EKIN c. FRANCE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 14+10, Art. 14, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 10 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 14+10 Violation de l'art. 6-1 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 13 Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• IRIS Merlin (Kurzinformation)

  Ekin Association gegen Frankreich

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 18.01.2000 - 39288/98
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

Wird zitiert von ... (94)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, the following judgments: Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30; Lingens v. Austria (no. 1), 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103; Oberschlick v. Austria, 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204; and The Observer and The Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216).
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  The Court has no doubt that section 14 of the Law of 29 July 1881, as amended by the decree of 6 May 1939, which formed the basis for the ministerial order of 29 April 1988 by which the French Minister of the Interior imposed a ban throughout France on the circulation, distribution or sale of the book published by the applicant association, can be regarded in itself as an "interference" with the applicant association's right to freedom of expression, an integral part of which is the freedom to publish written documents and books (see, mutatis mutandis, Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, § 41).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, the following judgments: Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30; Lingens v. Austria (no. 1), 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103; Oberschlick v. Austria, 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204; and The Observer and The Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216).

• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, the following judgments: Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30; Lingens v. Austria (no. 1), 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103; Oberschlick v. Austria, 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204; and The Observer and The Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, the following judgments: Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30; Lingens v. Austria (no. 1), 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103; Oberschlick v. Austria, 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204; and The Observer and The Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216).
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  This is borne out not only by the words "conditions", "restrictions", "preventing" and "prevention" which appear in that provision, but also by the Court in The Sunday Times (no. 1) (cited above) and in markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany (judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 165).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  The Court points out that the expression "prescribed by law", within the meaning of Article 10 § 2, requires firstly that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; however, it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences, and that it should be compatible with the rule of law (see Kruslin v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, p. 20, § 27).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23927/94

  SÜREK AND ÖZDEMIR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  This is the case whenever, as in the book in question, a separatist movement has recourse to methods relying on the use of violence (see Sürek and Özdemir v. Turkey [GC], nos. 23927/94 and 24277/94, § 51, 8 July 1999, unreported).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 27510/08

  Leugnung des Völkermords an Armeniern von Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt

  Il n'y a eu à mes yeux qu'une violation procédurale en raison d'un manque de sécurité juridique et d'une mise en balance insuffisante des droits en cause (voir, à titre d'exemples de violations procédurales de l'article 10 de la Convention, Association Ekin c. France, no 39288/98, CEDH 2001-VIII, § 58, et Lombardi Vallauri c. Italie no 39128/05, § 46, 20 octobre 2009).
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10

  Urteil gegen Türkei wegen Online-Zensur

  Pour autant, elles doivent s'inscrire dans un cadre légal particulièrement strict quant à la délimitation de l'interdiction et efficace quant au contrôle juridictionnel contre les éventuels abus (Association Ekin c. France, no 39288/98, § 58, CEDH 2001-VIII, voir également, mutatis mutandis, Comité de rédaction de Pravoye Delo et Shtekel c. Ukraine, no 33014/05, § 55, CEDH 2011).

  Ceci a été confirmé dans Editions Plon c. France, no 58148/00, § 42, CEDH 2004-IV ; Association Ekin c. France, no 39288/98, § 56, CEDH 2001-VIII ; et Oboukhova c. Russie, no 34736/03, § 22, 8 janvier 2009.

• EGMR, 08.11.2012 - 43481/09

  Verbot von Petas Holocaustvergleich: Masttiere sind keine KZ-Häftlinge

  Der Gerichtshof ist daher befugt, abschließend darüber zu entscheiden, ob eine "Einschränkung" mit der durch Artikel 10 geschützten Meinungsfreiheit in Einklang zu bringen ist (siehe u. v. a. Quellen, Perna./. Italien [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 48898/99, ECHR 2003-V, und Association Ekin./. Frankreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 39288/98, Rdnr. 56, ECHR 2001-VIII).

• EGMR, 12.09.2012 - 10593/08

  Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens und Recht auf Beschwerde; Verhältnis zwischen …

  The Court's assessment 128. It is the settled case-law of the Court that the word "victim" in the context of Article 34 of the Convention denotes the person directly affected by the act or omission in issue, the existence of a violation of the Convention being conceivable even in the absence of prejudice; prejudice is relevant only in the context of Article 41. Consequently, a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Gäfgen v. Germany (GC), no. 22978/05, § 115, ECHR 2010; Association Ekin v. France (dec.), no. 39288/98, 18 January 2000; Brumarescu v. Romania (GC), no. 28342/95, § 50, ECHR 1999-VII; Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III; and Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51).
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  La Cour a donc compétence pour statuer en dernier lieu sur le point de savoir si une « restriction'se concilie avec la liberté d'expression sauvegardée par l'article 10 (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, les arrêts Perna, précité, § 39, et Association Ekin c. France, no 39288/98, § 56, CEDH 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 21181/19

  TULEYA v. POLAND

  The criterion of foreseeability cannot be interpreted as requiring that all detailed conditions and procedures governing the interference be laid down in the substantive law itself, and the requirement of 'lawfulness' can be met if points which cannot be satisfactorily resolved on the basis of substantive law are set out in enactments of lower rank than statutes (see Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• 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, 13.02.2003 - 49636/99

  CHEVROL c. FRANCE

  The Government accordingly inferred that the ministerial order of 22 January 1999 satisfied the requirements of the Court's case-law concerning loss of victim status, although they were aware that the Court had a fairly broad conception of the notion of "victim" (see Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36, and Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, §§ 37-38, ECHR 2001-VIII) and that it had difficulty in accepting that a person could cease to be a victim during the course of the proceedings.

  Consequently, a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless "the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention" (see, among other authorities, Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, pp. 30-32, §§ 66 and 69; Inze v. Austria, judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 16, § 32; Association Ekin v. France (dec.), no. 39288/98, 18 January 2000, and the judgment in the same case, cited above, §§ 37-38).

• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 27057/06

  [ENG]

  The criterion of foreseeability cannot be interpreted as requiring that all detailed conditions and procedures governing the interference be laid down in the substantive law itself, and the requirements of "lawfulness" can be met if points which cannot be satisfactorily resolved on the basis of substantive law are set out in enactments of lower rank than statutes (ibid., §§ 88-89 and 93-94; Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Lebois v. Bulgaria, no. 67482/14, § 66, 19 October 2017).
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 76521/12

  EMINAGAOGLU c. TURQUIE

  Enfin, pour évaluer la justification d'une mesure litigieuse, il faut garder à l'esprit que l'équité de la procédure et les garanties procédurales sont des facteurs à prendre en considération lorsqu'il s'agit d'apprécier la proportionnalité d'une ingérence dans l'exercice de la liberté d'expression garantie par l'article 10 (voir, mutatis mutandis, Castells c. Espagne, 23 avril 1992, §§ 47-48, série A no 236, Association Ekin c. France, no 39288/98, § 61, CEDH 2001-VIII, Colombani et autres c. France, no 51279/99, § 66, CEDH 2002-V, Steel et Morris c. Royaume-Uni, no 68416/01, § 95, CEDH 2005-II, Kyprianou c. Chypre [GC], no 73797/01, §§ 171 et 181, CEDH 2005-XIII, Mamère c. France, no 12697/03, §§ 23-24, CEDH 2006-XIII, Koudechkina, précité, § 83, et Morice c. France [GC], no 29369/10, § 155, CEDH 2015).
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 6987/07

  GUSEVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 27520/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.01.2020 - 201/17

  MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 15948/03

  SOULAS ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 41226/09

  Türkei verurteilt: Nicht jeder ist ein Terrorist
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 17526/10

  GÜLCÜ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 42461/13

  KARÁCSONY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 51160/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 54145/10

  HLYNSDOTTIR (III) v. ICELAND
• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 17089/03

  SORGUÇ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 29994/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 64915/01

  CHAUVY AND OTHERS v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 48310/16

  KABLIS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  ERLA HLYNSDOTTIR (II) v. ICELAND
• EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 16853/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 50171/09

  BELGE v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 40072/13

  TODOROVA c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 30162/10

  Verletzung von Art. 10 EKMR (Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung) in polnischem …
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 64772/01

  LEEMPOEL AND S.A. ED. CINE REVUE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 04.06.2024 - 62199/19

  BOSEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 58512/16

  CIMPERSEK v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 46713/10

  BAKIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 43730/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 43380/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 42853/98

  GÜNERI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 4524/06

  YILDIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 28255/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.02.2025 - 56310/15

  K.P. v. POLAND
• EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 61177/09

  KORKUT ET AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL TURQUIE c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 36915/10

  YEHOVA"NIN SAHITLERINI DESTEKLEME DERNEGI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 24404/05

  MENGESHA KIMFE c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 31675/04

  CODARCEA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 71343/01

  BRASILIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 23.07.2019 - 8860/13

  GÜRBÜZ ET BAYAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 57316/10

  IMRET c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 4982/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 14526/07

  ÜRPER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 42211/07

  RIOLO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 57829/00

  VIDES AIZSARDZIBAS KLUBS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 51962/12

  ÖNER AND TÜRK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 53915/11

  DICLE c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 12606/11

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 30697/19

  SAVCI ÇENGEL c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 37115/06

  SGARBI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 44357/13

  SZÉL AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 25689/10

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 49197/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.03.2005 - 40287/98

  ALINAK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 23.07.2020 - 29760/15

  LAUTARU ET SEED c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 55760/11

  KAPMAZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 13716/12

  KAPMAZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 24.04.2018 - 51511/08

  TAS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 12261/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 34598/12

  KOSC v. POLAND
• EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 43612/10

  BELPIETRO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 35109/02

  SCHMIDT c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 30278/04

  ORMANNI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 45454/99

  YESILGÖZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 38767/09

  GÜLER AND ZARAKOLU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 16.03.2021 - 58125/09

  SAHIN (KELES) c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 33374/10

  TANRIKULU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 51508/08

  FATIH TAS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 24.04.2018 - 45281/08

  TAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 30.01.2014 - 34400/10

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 33347/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 42284/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 51041/99

  SAYGILI ET SEYMAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 65545/01

  RIZOS ET DASKAS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 02.05.2023 - 24108/15

  MESTAN c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 25479/19

  WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, INC. v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 37326/13

  UNIFAUN THEATRE PRODUCTIONS LIMITED AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 48053/11

  STANKIEWICZ AND OTHERS v. POLAND (No. 2)
• EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 54216/09

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 17590/02

  PAPAIANOPOL c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 25471/02

  GEMICI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 50747/99

  ERDOST c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.07.2006 - 61702/00

  SCHWEIZER c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 56928/00

  ADAM c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 11.04.2002 - 48679/99

  AEPI S.A. c. GRECE
• EGMR, 19.02.2002 - 35441/97
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 52363/11

  BIDART c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 34736/03

  OBUKHOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 68238/01

  V.D. & C.G. c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 55525/00

  HADRI-VIONNET c. SUISSE