Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AYHAN ERDOGAN v. TURKEY

  (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 39656/03
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 39656/03

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 39656/03

  The Court reiterates that in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction it must look at the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression in the light of the case as a whole, including the statements concerned, the context in which they were made and also the particular circumstances of those involved (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 77, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 39656/03

  On this point, the Court relies on the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, §§ 44-46, ECHR 2002-II, Pakdemirli v. Turkey, no. 35839/97, §§ 32-33, 22 February 2005, CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 88-91, ECHR 2004-XI, Steur v. the Netherlands, no. 39657/98, § 38, ECHR 2003-XI, and Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, §§ 45-46, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 28.10.2003 - 39657/98

  Meinungsfreiheit von Rechtsanwälten (Bedeutung der Rechtsanwälte für das …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 39656/03

  On this point, the Court relies on the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, §§ 44-46, ECHR 2002-II, Pakdemirli v. Turkey, no. 35839/97, §§ 32-33, 22 February 2005, CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 88-91, ECHR 2004-XI, Steur v. the Netherlands, no. 39657/98, § 38, ECHR 2003-XI, and Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, §§ 45-46, ECHR 2007-...).

 
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 39656/03

  On this point, the Court relies on the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, §§ 44-46, ECHR 2002-II, Pakdemirli v. Turkey, no. 35839/97, §§ 32-33, 22 February 2005, CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 88-91, ECHR 2004-XI, Steur v. the Netherlands, no. 39657/98, § 38, ECHR 2003-XI, and Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, §§ 45-46, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 22.02.2005 - 35839/97

  PAKDEMIRLI c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 39656/03

  On this point, the Court relies on the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, §§ 44-46, ECHR 2002-II, Pakdemirli v. Turkey, no. 35839/97, §§ 32-33, 22 February 2005, CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 88-91, ECHR 2004-XI, Steur v. the Netherlands, no. 39657/98, § 38, ECHR 2003-XI, and Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, §§ 45-46, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 39656/03

  On this point, the Court relies on the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, §§ 44-46, ECHR 2002-II, Pakdemirli v. Turkey, no. 35839/97, §§ 32-33, 22 February 2005, CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 88-91, ECHR 2004-XI, Steur v. the Netherlands, no. 39657/98, § 38, ECHR 2003-XI, and Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, §§ 45-46, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02

  KULIS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 39656/03

  Moreover, the Court reiterates that while limits of critical comment are wider if a public figure is involved, as he or she is inevitably and knowingly exposed to public scrutiny and must therefore display a particularly high degree of tolerance (see Kulis v. Poland, no. 15601/02, § 47, 18 March 2008), the reputation of a politician, even a controversial one, must benefit from the protection afforded by the Convention (see Lindon, Otczakovsky-Laurnes and July v. France, [GC], cited above, § 57, ECHR 2007-...).