Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KILIÇ AND EREN v. TURKEY

  Art. 10 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Kiliç and Eren v. Turkey

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (22)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 43807/07

  In particular, it must determine whether the interference in question was "proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued" and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient" (see, among other authorities, Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23168/94

  KARATAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 43807/07

  In this connection, the Court stresses that Article 10 protects not only the substance of the ideas and information expressed, but also the form in which they are conveyed (see Karatas v. Turkey [GC], no. 23168/94, § 49, ECHR 1999-IV; and Gül and Others, cited above, § 41).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23927/94

  SÜREK AND ÖZDEMIR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 43807/07

  Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no "democratic society" (see Sürek and Özdemir v. Turkey [GC], nos. 23927/94 and 24277/94, § 57, 8 July 1999).
• EGMR, 26.04.2005 - 63878/00

  BALCIK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 43807/07

  In the Court's view, the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicants and their subsequent convictions for shouting slogans amounted to an interference with their right to freedom of expression, notwithstanding the fact that the second applicant's sentence was subsequently suspended by the domestic court (see, mutatis mutandis, Balçık v. Turkey, no. 63878/00, §§ 40-42, 26 April 2005).
• EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 38841/07

  TASDEMIR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 43807/07

  The Court further notes that the present application is distinguishable on its context from the case of Tasdemir v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 38841/07, 23 February 2010).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 3840/10

  Türkei: Verbot von Kurden-Partei DTP war rechtswidrig

  Elle rappelle en outre s'être déjà prononcée sur des slogans similaires et avoir estimé que ces derniers n'étaient pas de nature à avoir un impact sur la sécurité nationale ou l'ordre public (Kılıç et Eren c. Turquie, no 43807/07, §§ 29-30, 29 novembre 2011, et Bülent Kaya c. Turquie, no 52056/08, § 42, 22 octobre 2013).
• EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 9662/10

  YURTDAS ET SÖYLEMEZ c. TURQUIE

  Elle estime que, compte tenu de l'effet dissuasif que la procédure pénale litigieuse, la condamnation au pénale et la décision du sursis à l'exécution accompagnée d'une période de surveillance, ont pu provoquer, celles-ci s'analysent en une ingérence dans l'exercice par l'intéressé de son droit à la liberté d'expression (Kılıç et Eren c. Turquie, no 43807/07, § 22, 29 novembre 2011 ; pour les effets d'une période de surveillance, voir, mutatis mutandis, Çetin c. Turquie, no 42779/98, § 24, 20 décembre 2005).

  La Cour observe que cette ingérence était prévue par l'article 215 du code pénal et poursuivait un but légitime, à savoir la protection de la sécurité nationale et de l'ordre public, au sens de l'article 10 § 2 de la Convention (entre autres, Kılıç et Eren c. Turquie, no 43807/07, § 22, 29 novembre 2011, Bülent Kaya c. Turquie, no 52056/08, § 35, 22 octobre 2013).

• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 30682/11

  YÜKSEL v. TURKEY

  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 Article 10 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; Kılıç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, §§ 20-31, 29 November 2011; Faruk Temel, cited above, §§ 58-64; Öner and Türk cited above, §§ 19-27; 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).

  In this connection, the Court observes that there is no indication in the case file that the gathering in question was not peaceful or that the people who attended the celebrations engaged in acts of violence after listening to the applicant's statement (see Kılıç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, § 27, 29 November 2011, and Belge, cited above, § 34).

• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 5782/10

  POLAT AND TALI v. TURKEY

  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 a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see, for example, Erdoğdu and İnce v. Turkey [GC], nos. 25067/94 and 25068/94, §§ 32-55, ECHR 1999-IV; Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, §§ 34-52, 8 July 1999; Koç and Tambaş v. Turkey, no. 50934/99, §§ 25-40, 21 March 2006; Ulusoy v. Turkey, no. 52709/99, §§ 31-49, 31 July 2007; 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; Yavuz and Yaylalı v. Turkey, no. 12606/11, §§ 42-55, 17 December 2013; Öner and Türk, cited above, §§ 19-27, 31 March 2015; and Belge v. Turkey, no. 50171/09, §§ 24-38, 6 December 2016).

  In this connection, the Court notes that there is no indication in the case file that the people who had visited the exhibition engaged in acts of violence after visiting it (see Kılıç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, § 27, 29 November 2011).

• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 22678/93

  INCAL CONTRE LA TURQUIE ET 1 AUTRE AFFAIRE

  43807/07.
• EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 50171/09

  BELGE v. TURKEY

  In this connection, the Court notes that there is no indication in the case file that the gathering in front of the DEHAP building was not peaceful or that the people who had attended the demonstration engaged in acts of violence after listening to the applicant's speech (see Kılıç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, § 27, 29 November 2011).
• EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 36443/06

  [ENG]

  Il ne s'agit pas non plus d'un discours de haine, ce qui est aux yeux de la Cour l'élément essentiel à prendre en considération (voir, parmi plusieurs autres, Bahçeci et Turan, précité, § 31, et Kılıç et Eren c. Turquie, no 43807/07, § 29, 29 novembre 2011).
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 46713/10

  BAKIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  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, cited above, §§ 19-27; Gülcü, cited above, §§ 110-17; and Belge, cited above, §§ 24-38).
• BayObLG, 08.12.2022 - 206 StRR 220/22

  Parole "Serok Öcalan" als "Kennzeichen" der PKK iSd § 20 Abs. 1 S. 1 Nr. 5 …

  Soweit der Angeklagte sich darauf beruft, dass der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte in den beiden von ihm vorgelegten Urteilen vom 8. Oktober 2011 bzw. 22. Oktober 2019 (Fall 43807/07; Fall 9662/10; Übersetzung Bl. 665 und 689 ff d.A.) erkannt habe, dass die Parole "Serok Öcalan" bzw. sinnentsprechende Parolen von der Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt seien, trifft dies zwar zu, verkennt allerdings, dass diese Entscheidungen jeweils im Zusammenhang mit Verurteilungen gemäß Art. 215 des türkischen Strafgesetzbuchs wegen der Billigung bzw. des Lobes von Straftaten und Straftätern erfolgt sind.
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 2257/11

  BAKIR v. TURKEY

  The Court reiterates that it has previously examined complaints relating to issues that were similar to those in the present case and has found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see Kılıç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, §§ 20-31, 29 November 2011; Gül and Others, cited above, §§ 32-45; Bahçeci and Turan v. Turkey, no. 33340/03, §§ 24-34, 16 June 2009; and in particular Belge v. Turkey, no. 50171/09, §§ 17 and 35, 6 December 2016, and Varhan v. Turkey ([Committee], no. 2433/12, §§ 16-24, 25 September 2018), where the Court found a violation on account of the applicant's conviction for disseminating propaganda on the basis of waving a green, yellow and red flag symbolising the PKK and chanting slogans).
• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 36643/09

  YIGIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 52056/08

  KAYA c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 14619/12

  GÜL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 20509/10

  AYAYDIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 2433/12

  VARHAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 70107/11

  SARITAS AND GEYIK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 57069/09

  ZENGIN AND ÇAKIR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 74054/11

  YiLDiRiM v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 64375/12

  DÜZEL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 25764/09

  YALÇINKAYA ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 39047/11

  KiNiK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 3752/11

  ARSLAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE