Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 51962/12   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2015,5813
EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 51962/12 (https://dejure.org/2015,5813)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 31.03.2015 - 51962/12 (https://dejure.org/2015,5813)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 31. März 2015 - 51962/12 (https://dejure.org/2015,5813)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,5813) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (40)Zitiert selbst (6)

  • EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 16853/05

    [FRE]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 51962/12
    Under former Section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713), any person who disseminated propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation was liable to a term of imprisonment of between one and five years (Faruk Temel v. Turkey, no. 16853/05, § 27, 1 February 2011).

    While questions could arise with respect to the foreseeability of that provision in its application, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal with this issue, having regard to its conclusion below, regarding the necessity of the interference (see Faruk Temel v. Turkey, no. 16853/05, § 49, 1 February 2011; and Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-VIII).

  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

    SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 51962/12
    Moreover, the speeches in question delivered by the applicants were not capable of inciting violence by instilling a deep-seated and irrational hatred against identifiable persons (Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-IV) and therefore did not constitute hate speech.
  • EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

    EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 51962/12
    While questions could arise with respect to the foreseeability of that provision in its application, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal with this issue, having regard to its conclusion below, regarding the necessity of the interference (see Faruk Temel v. Turkey, no. 16853/05, § 49, 1 February 2011; and Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-VIII).
  • EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 10755/13

    UZUN c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 51962/12
    Having examined the main aspects of the new remedy before the Turkish Constitutional Court, the Court found that the Turkish Parliament had entrusted that court with powers that enabled it to provide, in principle, direct and speedy redress for violations of the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention, in respect of all decisions that had become final after 23 September 2012, and held that it was a remedy to be used (Uzun v. Turkey (dec.), no. 10755/13, §§ 68-71, 30 April 2013).
  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24919/94

    GERGER v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 51962/12
    The Court considers that, taken as a whole, the applicant's speech does not encourage violence, armed resistance or an uprising (see, Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 50, 8 July 1999, and contrast Halis Dogan v. Turkey, no. 75946/01, §§ 35-38, 7 February 2006).
  • EGMR, 07.02.2006 - 75946/01

    HALIS DOGAN c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 51962/12
    The Court considers that, taken as a whole, the applicant's speech does not encourage violence, armed resistance or an uprising (see, Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 50, 8 July 1999, and contrast Halis Dogan v. Turkey, no. 75946/01, §§ 35-38, 7 February 2006).
  • EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 2433/12

    VARHAN v. TURKEY

    The Court notes at the outset that it has already examined and dismissed an identical objection regarding the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies by the respondent Government (see Öner and Türk v. Turkey, no. 51962/12, §§ 14-18, 31 March 2015).

    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 v. Turkey, no. 51962/12, §§ 19-27, 31 March 2015; Gülcü v. Turkey, no. 17526, § §§ 110-117, 19 January 2016; 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).

  • EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 50171/09

    BELGE v. TURKEY

    The Court considers that the expressions "the leader of the Kurdish people" and "guerrilla" by themselves do not incite to violence (see Erdoğdu and İnce v. Turkey [GC], nos. 25067/94 and 25068/94, § 52, ECHR 1999-IV, in which the Court considered that an interview published in a monthly review in which the members of the PKK had been referred as "guerrilla" had not constituted incitement to violence and could not be construed as liable to incite to violence; Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 50, 8 July 1999, in which the Court held that the applicant's speech, which referred to the members of the PKK as "guerrilla", had constituted political criticism of the Turkish authorities and not an incitement to violence, armed resistance or an uprising; Bahçeci and Turan, cited above, § 30 and Savgın v. Turkey, no. 13304/03, § 45, 2 February 2010, in which the Court considered that text messages and slogans which referred to Abdullah Öcalan as the president had not incited to violence; Faruk Temel, cited above, § 62, in which the Court found that referring to Abdullah Öcalan as "esteemed" (sayın) during a speech did not incite to violence; and Öner and Türk v. Turkey, no. 51962/12, § 24, 31 March 2015, in which the Court held that the applicant's speech, in which he described Abdullah Öcalan as the "Kurdish leader" did not constitute incitement to violence).
  • EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 48694/10

    ÇIÇEK c. TURQUIE

    La Cour note qu'elle a déjà examiné et rejeté des exceptions identiques soulevées par le Gouvernement dans de précédentes affaires (voir Öner et Türk c. Turquie, no 51962/12, §§ 14-18, 31 mars 2015, et Özer c. Turquie (no 3), no. 69270/12, § 19, 11 février 2020).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht