Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOÇ AND TAMBAS v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 50934/99

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, Sener v. Turkey, no. 26680/95, §§ 39-43, 18 July 2000, Ä°brahim Aksoy, cited above, §§ 51-53, Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 26, §§ 41 42, and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24919/94

  GERGER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 50934/99

  The Court considers that, although certain particularly acerbic passages paint an extremely negative picture of the Turkish State and of its Minister of Justice and thus give the narratives hostile tones, the articles, taken as a whole, do not encourage violence, armed resistance or insurrection and do not constitute hate speech (see Birol v. Turkey, no. 44104/98, § 29, 1 March 2005, contrast Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-IV, and Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 50, 8 July 1999).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23168/94

  KARATAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 50934/99

  The Court takes into account, furthermore, the background to cases submitted to it, particularly problems linked to the prevention of terrorism (see Karakas v. Turkey [GC], no. 23168/94, § 54, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 18.07.2000 - 26680/95

  SENER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 50934/99

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, Sener v. Turkey, no. 26680/95, §§ 39-43, 18 July 2000, Ä°brahim Aksoy, cited above, §§ 51-53, Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 26, §§ 41 42, and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999).
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 59745/00

  GÜNDÜZ contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 50934/99

  In addition, the Court considers that, despite certain particularly virulent passages such as the one highlighted by the Government and its provocative title, the third article, read as a whole, cannot be construed as having exposed the Minister of Justice of the time of the events to a significant risk of physical violence (see, a contrario, Gündüz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 59745/00, ECHR 2003-XI (extracts)).

• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 5782/10

  POLAT AND TALI v. TURKEY

  25067/94 and 25068/94, §§ 32-55, ECHR 1999-IV; Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, §§ 34-52, 8 July 1999; Koç and Tambas v. Turkey, no. 50934/99, §§ 25-40, 21 March 2006; Ulusoy v. Turkey, no. 52709/99, §§ 31-49, 31 July 2007; Savgin v. Turkey, no. 13304/03, §§ 39-48, 2 February 2010; Gül and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870/02, §§ 32-45, 8 June 2010; Mentes v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 33347/04, §§ 39-54, 25 January 2011; Kiliç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, §§ 20-31, 29 November 2011; Faruk Temel, cited above, §§ 58-64; Yavuz and Yaylali 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).
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 6813/09

  FATIH TAS v. TURKEY (No. 2)

  In the Court's opinion, that condition entailed real and effective restraint and had a deterrent effect on his very profession (see Erdogdu v. Turkey, no. 25723/94, § 72, ECHR 2000-VI, and Koç and Tambas v. Turkey, no. 50934/99, § 39, 21 March 2006).