Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HAN v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3-b Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - claim rejected Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation of Art. 6 sufficient in that regard financial award in respect of the violation of Art. 10 Costs and ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 50997/99
• EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 50997/99

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 50997/99

  In the Court's view, this is the essential factor (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) in the assessment of the necessity of the measure.
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 22479/93

  ÖZTÜRK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 50997/99

  Rn. 29 The Court notes at the outset that it has examined a number of cases raising similar issues to those in the present case and found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see, in particular, the following judgments: Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 38, ECHR 1999-IV, Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 74, ECHR 1999-VI, İbrahim Aksoy, cited above, § 80, Kızılyaprak v. Turkey, no. 27528/95, § 43, 2 October 2003, and Gümüş and Others, cited above, §§ 14-19).
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 11.07.2014 - 13/12

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 50997/99

  13/12/2005.

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94

  CEYLAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 50997/99

  Rn. 29 The Court notes at the outset that it has examined a number of cases raising similar issues to those in the present case and found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see, in particular, the following judgments: Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 38, ECHR 1999-IV, Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 74, ECHR 1999-VI, İbrahim Aksoy, cited above, § 80, Kızılyaprak v. Turkey, no. 27528/95, § 43, 2 October 2003, and Gümüş and Others, cited above, §§ 14-19).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24919/94

  GERGER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 50997/99

  In the Court's view, this is the essential factor (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) in the assessment of the necessity of the measure.
• EGMR, 02.10.2003 - 27528/95

  KIZILYAPRAK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 50997/99

  Rn. 29 The Court notes at the outset that it has examined a number of cases raising similar issues to those in the present case and found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see, in particular, the following judgments: Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 38, ECHR 1999-IV, Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 74, ECHR 1999-VI, İbrahim Aksoy, cited above, § 80, Kızılyaprak v. Turkey, no. 27528/95, § 43, 2 October 2003, and Gümüş and Others, cited above, §§ 14-19).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24762/94

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 4)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 50997/99

  The Court has examined the reasons given in the State Security Court's judgment and does not consider them sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression (see, mutatis mutandis, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 4) [GC], no. 24762/94, § 58, 8 July 1999).
• EGMR, 07.11.2002 - 42739/98

  ÖZEL c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 50997/99

  Rn. 22 The Court notes that it has examined similar cases in the past and has concluded that there was a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Özel v. Turkey, no. 42739/98, §§ 33-34, 7 November 2002, and Özdemir v. Turkey, no. 59659/00, §§ 35-36, 6 February 2003).
• EGMR, 14.10.2004 - 46284/99

  YANIKOGLU v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 50997/99

  Having regard to its above finding that the applicant's right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal has been infringed, the Court considers that it is unnecessary to examine the applicant's remaining complaint under Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see Yanıkoğlu v. Turkey, no. 46284/99, §§ 22-23, 14 October 2004, and Gümüş and Others v. Turkey, no. 40303/98, § 24, 15 March 2005).
• EGMR, 15.03.2005 - 40303/98

  GUMUS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 50997/99

  Having regard to its above finding that the applicant's right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal has been infringed, the Court considers that it is unnecessary to examine the applicant's remaining complaint under Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see Yanıkoğlu v. Turkey, no. 46284/99, §§ 22-23, 14 October 2004, and Gümüş and Others v. Turkey, no. 40303/98, § 24, 15 March 2005).
• EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 34685/97

  DICLE v. TURKEY

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 41827/02

  KOMMERSANT MOLDOVY v. MOLDOVA

  These "duties and responsibilities" are liable to assume significance when, as in the present case, there is a question of endangering the national security and the territorial integrity of a State (Han v. Turkey, no. 50997/99, §§ 30 et seq., 13 September 2005).
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 59241/10

  YILDIZ v. TURKEY

  Accordingly, proceedings which concern solely the interpretation of law and not the establishment of facts may comply with the requirements of Article 6, even if the appellant is not given an opportunity of being heard in person by the appeal or cassation court (see, Han v. Turkey, no. 50997/99, 13 September 2005).
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 59645/00

  AKINTI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court notes that it has examined similar cases in the past and has concluded that there was a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Özel, cited above, §§ 33-34; Özdemir v. Turkey, no. 59659/00, §§ 35-36, 6 February 2003; and Han v. Turkey, no. 50997/99, §§ 23-24, 13 September 2005).
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 52709/99

  ULUSOY v. TURKEY

  The Court has examined a number of cases raising similar issues to those arising in the present case and found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see, in particular, the following judgments: Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 38, ECHR 1999-IV; Öztürk, cited above, § 74; Ä°brahim Aksoy, cited above, § 80; Kızılyaprak v. Turkey, no. 27528/95, § 43, 2 October 2003; and Han v. Turkey, no. 50997/99, §§ 27-33, 13 September 2005).