Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ULUSOY v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10 MRK
  Vilation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 10 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 52709/99

  The Court finds that that submission was directly connected to Article 10 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, §§ 36-39, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 52709/99

  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, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94

  CEYLAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 52709/99

  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).

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24919/94

  GERGER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 52709/99

  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, 31.07.2007 - 52709/99

  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).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24762/94

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 4)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 52709/99

  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, 21.12.2006 - 50087/99

  MÜSLÜM ÖZBEY c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 52709/99

  In any event, the Court considers that, although the suspension of the remainder of the applicant's prison sentence might be a relevant factor to be taken into account in assessing the proportionality of that measure to the legitimate aim it pursued, a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not sufficient in principle to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (see, among other authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 73, ECHR 1999-VI; see also Müslüm Özbey v. Turkey, no. 50087/99, § 26, 21 December 2006).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 65897/01

  AKGÜL v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 52709/99

  The Court has examined a large number of cases raising issues similar to those arising in the present case and found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, in particular, Incal, cited above, §§ 61-73; see also, more recently, Akgül v. Turkey, no. 65897/01, § 25, 16 January 2007).
• EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 50997/99

  HAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 52709/99

  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).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 17526/10

  GÜLCÜ v. TURKEY

  The Court reiterates in this connection that a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not sufficient in principle to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 73, ECHR 1999-VI; Erdoğdu v. Turkey, no. 25723/94, § 72, ECHR 2000-VI; Müslüm Özbey v. Turkey, no. 50087/99, § 26, 21 December 2006; and Ulusoy v. Turkey, no. 52709/99, § 34, 31 July 2007).
• EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 48694/10

  ÇIÇEK c. TURQUIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'une décision ou une mesure favorable au requérant ne suffit en principe à lui retirer la qualité de « victime'que si les autorités nationales ont reconnu, explicitement ou en substance, puis réparé la violation de la Convention (voir Öztürk c. Turquie [GC], no 22479/93, § 73, CEDH 1999-VI ; Erdoğdu c. Turquie, no 25723/94, § 72, CEDH 2000-VI, Müslüm Özbey c. Turquie, no 50087/99, § 26, 21 décembre 2006, et Ulusoy c. Turquie, no 52709/99, § 34, 31 juillet 2007).
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 28003/03

  [ENG]

  The Court has already had occasion to examine articles and speeches featuring the phrase "dirty war" in a number of its judgments (see, in particular, Birdal v. Turkey, no. 53047/99, §§ 6 and 37, 2 October 2007; Ulusoy v. Turkey, no. 52709/99, §§ 13, 16 and 47, 31 July 2007; and Sener v. Turkey, no. 26680/95, §§ 44-45, 18 July 2000), and considered them to be a sharp criticism of the Government's policy and of the actions of their security forces.

• EGMR, 06.06.2023 - 58262/10

  KAZAN c. TURQUIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'une décision ou mesure favorable au requérant ne suffit en principe à retirer à l'intéressé la qualité de « victime'que si les autorités nationales ont reconnu, explicitement ou en substance, puis réparé la violation de la Convention (voir Öztürk c. Turquie [GC], no 22479/93, § 73, CEDH 1999-VI ; Erdoğdu c. Turquie, no 25723/94, § 72, CEDH 2000-VI, Müslüm Özbey c. Turquie, no 50087/99, § 26, 21 décembre 2006, et Ulusoy c. Turquie, no 52709/99, § 34, 31 juillet 2007).
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 20509/10

  AYAYDIN v. TURKEY

  Hence, by acknowledging some of the facts which concern the exercise of his freedom of expression, the applicant must be considered to have raised, in substance, his complaint under Article 10 of the Convention before the national courts (see Ulusoy v. Turkey, no. 52709/99, § 38, 31 July 2007; Yılmaz and Kılıç, cited above, § 43; and Agit Demir v. Turkey, no. 36475/10, §§ 66-67, 27 February 2018[1]; see also Özgür Radyo-Ses Radyo Televizyon Yayın Yapım Ve Tanıtım A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 1), nos.
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 74054/11

  YiLDiRiM v. TURKEY

  Hence, by acknowledging some of the facts concerning the exercise of his freedom of expression, the applicant must be considered to have raised his complaint under Article 10 of the Convention in substance before the national courts (see Ulusoy v. Turkey, no. 52709/99, § 38, 31 July 2007; Yılmaz and Kılıç, no. 68514/10, § 43, 17 July 2008; and Agit Demir v. Turkey, no. 36475/10, §§ 66 - 67, 27 February 2018[2]; see also Özgür Radyo-Ses Radyo Televizyon Yayın Yapım Ve Tanıtım A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 1), nos.
• 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).