Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GÜL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 4870/02
• EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02
• EGMR - 4870/02

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 68514/01

  YILMAZ ET KILIÇ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02

  At this point, the Court recalls that it has examined complaints relating to similar issues to those in the present case and found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see, Yılmaz and Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 68514/01, §§ 48-69, 17 July 2008; Bahçeci and Turan v. Turkey, no. 33340/03, §§ 24-34, 16 June 2009; Kızılyaprak v. Turkey, no. 27528/95, § 43, 2 October 2003; Feridun Yazar v. Turkey, no. 42713/98, §§ 23-29, 23 September 2004).

  Vice versa, support of an illegal, armed organisation at an illegal meeting may be protected (see Yılmaz and Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 68514/01, 17 July 2008).

• EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 38841/07

  TASDEMIR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02

  The Court further notes that the present application is distinguishable on its facts and context from the case of Tasdemir v. Turkey ((dec.), 38841/07, 23 February 2010).

  The majority are of the view that the case can be distinguished from Tasdemir v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 38841/07, 23 February 2010).

• EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 57258/00

  YARAR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02

  Furthermore, the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are also factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of the interference (see, Yarar v. Turkey, no. 57258/00, § 41, 19 December 2006).

  In that connection, the Court reiterates that the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are also factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with freedom of expression (see Yarar v. Turkey, no. 57258/00, § 41, 19 December 2006).

• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 36109/03

  LEROY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02

  Such identification may amount to the glorification of violent destruction and an expression of moral support (Leroy v. France, no. 36109/03, § 43, 2 October 2008).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02

  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, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02

  The Court stresses, however, that whilst this assessment should not be taken as an approval of the tone of these slogans, it must be recalled 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).
• EGMR, 02.10.2003 - 27528/95

  KIZILYAPRAK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02

  At this point, the Court recalls that it has examined complaints relating to similar issues to those in the present case and found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see, Yılmaz and Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 68514/01, §§ 48-69, 17 July 2008; Bahçeci and Turan v. Turkey, no. 33340/03, §§ 24-34, 16 June 2009; Kızılyaprak v. Turkey, no. 27528/95, § 43, 2 October 2003; Feridun Yazar v. Turkey, no. 42713/98, §§ 23-29, 23 September 2004).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23927/94

  SÜREK AND ÖZDEMIR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02

  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, 25.01.2005 - 37096/97

  Karademirci u.a. ./. Türkei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02

  The Court considers that the applicants' complaints should be examined solely under Article 10 of the Convention (see, Karademirci and Others v. Turkey, nos. 37096/97 and 37101/97, § 26, ECHR 2005-I).
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01

  BÖKE AND KANDEMIR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02

  It concludes that, in the special circumstances of the present case, there is no need to make a separate ruling on the applicants' remaining complaints under this provision (see, Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 73, 10 March 2009; Yalçın Küçük v. Turkey (no. 3), no. 71353/01, § 40, 22 April 2008).
• EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 42713/98

  FERIDUN YAZAR ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 71353/01

  YALCIN KÜÇÜK (NO. 3) c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 50934/99

  KOÇ AND TAMBAS v. TURKEY

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 46713/10

  BAKIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court applied the same principle in the case of Gül and others v. Turkey (4870/02) and held that the criminal conviction of the applicants on the basis of Article 169 of the former Penal Code constituted an interference with their right to freedom of expression, since the only evidence used against them was the content of the slogans they shouted during a public demonstration.

  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).

• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 69270/12

  ÖZER v. TURKEY

  Elle a conclu, dans ces affaires, que ces écrits, déclarations et actes, même s'ils avaient parfois un caractère hostile et véhiculaient des critiques acerbes à l'égard des autorités étatiques ou des opinions susceptibles d'être considérées favorables à l'égard de certaines organisations illégales ou de leurs dirigeants ou membres, pris dans leur ensemble, ne pouvaient être regardés comme contenant un appel à l'usage de la violence, à la résistance armée ou au soulèvement, ni comme constituant un discours de haine, et qu'ils n'étaient pas non plus susceptibles de favoriser la violence en insufflant une haine profonde et irrationnelle envers des personnes identifiées, tout en précisant qu'il s'agissait là, à ses yeux, d'éléments essentiels à prendre en considération (voir, à cet égard, Ayhan c. Turquie (no 1), no 45585/99, § 38, 10 novembre 2004, Gül et autres c. Turquie, no 4870/02, §§ 41 et 42, 8 juin 2010, Çamyar et Berktaş c. Turquie, no 41959/02, §§ 40-42, 15 février 2011, Yavuz et Yaylalı, précité, § 52, Faruk Temel, précité, § 62, Öner et Türk, précité, § 24, Belge, précité, §§ 34 et 35, Fatih Taş c. Turquie (no 2), no 6813/09, § 18, 10 octobre 2017, Selahattin Demirtaş, précité, § 31, Bayar c. Turquie [comité], no 24548/10, § 23, 19 juin 2018, Sarıtaş et Geyik c. Turquie [comité], no 70107/11, § 26, 19 juin 2018, Arslan et autres c. Turquie [comité], no 3752/11, § 29, 10 juillet 2018, Dündar et Aydınkaya c. Turquie [comité], no 37091/11, § 24, 10 juillet 2018, Polat et Tali c. Turquie [comité], no 5782/10, §§ 31 et 32, 25 septembre 2018, Özbay [comité], précité, § 45, Uçar c. Turquie [comité], no 53319/10, § 24, 5 mars 2019, Polat [comité], précité, § 30, Dağtekin c. Turquie [comité], no 69448/10, § 25, 28 mai 2019, Taş Çakar c. Turquie [comité], no 73487/12, § 23, 28 mai 2019, Kılınç c. Turquie [comité], no 73954/11, 2 juillet 2019, Ete c. Turquie [comité], no 35575/12, § 25, 3 septembre 2019, Kalkan c. Turquie [comité], no 21196/12, § 22, 1er octobre 2019, Aramaz c. Turquie [comité], no 62928/12, §§ 19 et 20, 1er octobre 2019, Yamaç c. Turquie [comité], nos 69604/12 et 5642/13, § 34, 1er octobre 2019, et Kalkan c. Turquie [comité], no 54698/13, 1er octobre 2019).
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 57316/10

  IMRET c. TURQUIE

  The Court applied the same principle in the case of Gül and others v. Turkey (4870/02) and held that the criminal conviction of the applicants on the basis of Article 169 of the former Penal Code constituted an interference with their right to freedom of expression, since the only evidence used against them was the content of the slogans they shouted during a public demonstration.

• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 70107/11

  SARITAS AND GEYIK v. TURKEY

  Referring, in particular, to the Court's judgments in Gül and Others v. Turkey (no. 4870/02, 8 June 2010) and Faruk Temel v. Turkey (no. 16853/05, 1 February 2011), the applicants claimed that their conviction was not necessary in a democratic society.
• EGMR, 03.04.2025 - 48635/20

  GÜL AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE

  In a number of judgments against Türkiye, the Court found a violation of Article 10 in similar circumstances as the domestic courts failed to contextualise and provide adequate and relevant reasoning as to whether the impugned acts or statements could be considered, given their content, the context in which they were made, and their capacity to cause harm considering their potential impact in the circumstances of the cases, as containing an incitement to the use of violence, armed resistance, or uprising, or as constituting hate speech (see, among others, Gül and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870/02, §§ 41-44, 8 June 2010; Yavuz and Yaylalı v. Turkey, no. 12606/11, §§ 42-55, 17 December 2013; Özer v. Turkey (no. 3), no. 69270/12, 11 February 2020; Üçdağ v. Turkey, no. 23314/19, 31 August 2021).
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 74054/11

  YiLDiRiM v. TURKEY

  Referring in particular to the Court's judgments in Savgın v. Turkey (no. 13304/03, 2 February 2010) and Gül and Others v. Turkey (no. 4870/02, 8 June 2010), the applicant claimed that his conviction had not been necessary in a democratic society.
• EGMR, 01.04.2025 - 45401/15

  HARUTYUNYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA and 1 other application

  While it seems unlikely that the threat could have been carried out, all the more so as the applicants were only lightly armed, the first applicant did not put forward any plausible argument that would allow the Court to interpret those statements as mere catchphrases or having a non-violent meaning (compare Gül and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870/02, § 41, 8 June 2010, and Karpyuk and Others v. Ukraine, nos.
• EGMR, 06.04.2021 - 34313/06

  OLGA KUDRINA v. RUSSIA

  In particular, the Court notes that the applicant's conduct, although involving a certain degree of disturbance and causing some damage to property, did not amount to violence or incite it; and no persons were injured during the protest in which the applicant was implicated (see, for similar reasoning, Taranenko, cited above, § 93; Gül and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870/02, § 42, 8 June 2010; and contrast Osmani and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 50841/99, ECHR 2001-X, where the police were attacked by a group of about 200 people, who were armed with metal sticks and threw stones, rocks, Molotov cocktails and teargas projectiles at them).
• 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).