Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IBRAHIM TOKMAK c. TURQUIE

  Violation de l'article 6 - Droit à un procès équitable (Article 6 - Procédure disciplinaire;Article 6-1 - Tribunal impartial;Tribunal indépendant);Violation de l'article 10 - Liberté d'expression-général (Article 10-1 - Liberté d'expression);Dommage matériel ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  TOKMAK c. TURQUIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 54540/16

  En tout état de cause, la Cour rappelle sa jurisprudence constante selon laquelle un contentieux disciplinaire dont l'enjeu est le droit de continuer à pratiquer un métier, peut donner lieu à des « contestations'sur des droits civils au sens de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (voir, parmi d'autres, Le Compte, Van Leuven et De Meyere c. Belgique, 23 juin 1981, § 45, série A no 43).
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 54540/16

  Elle reconnaît donc que l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention trouve à s'appliquer dans son volet civil notamment quand le requérant fait l'objet d'une interdiction temporaire (Diennet c. France, arrêt du 26 septembre 1995, §§ 11 et 27, série A no 325-A) ou permanente d'exercer son métier (A c. Finlande (déc.), no 44998/98, 8 janvier 2004).
• EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 30226/10

  ALI RIZA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 54540/16

  Pour un résumé détaillé du droit interne et international pertinent en l'espèce, voir Ali Rıza et autres c. Turquie (nos 30226/10 et 4 autres, §§ 45-141, 28 janvier 2020).

• EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 31475/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 54540/16

  Elle rappelle à cet égard que ce droit constitue un « droit civil'au sens de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (Kenedi c. Hongrie, no 31475/05, § 33, 26 mai 2009).
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 43453/04

  GÖZEL ET ÖZER c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 54540/16

  Elle estime que, pour apprécier si la « nécessité'de l'atteinte portée au droit du requérant à la liberté d'expression est établie de manière convaincante en l'espèce, elle doit, conformément à sa jurisprudence, se déterminer essentiellement à la lumière de la motivation retenue par les autorités nationales à l'appui des sanctions litigieuses (Gözel et Özer c. Turquie, nos 43453/04 et 31098/05, § 51, 6 juillet 2010).
• EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 41226/09

  Türkei verurteilt: Nicht jeder ist ein Terrorist

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 54540/16

  Eu égard aux constats de violation auxquels elle est parvenue ci-dessus (paragraphes 23 et 38), la Cour juge inutile d'examiner séparément la recevabilité et le fond des griefs susmentionnés (pour une approche similaire, voir Ali Rıza et autres, précité, § 226, Işıkırık c. Turquie, no 41226/09, § 71, 14 novembre 2017, et Kamil Uzun c. Turquie, no 37410/97, § 64, 10 mai 2007).
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 37410/97

  KAMIL UZUN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 54540/16

  Eu égard aux constats de violation auxquels elle est parvenue ci-dessus (paragraphes 23 et 38), la Cour juge inutile d'examiner séparément la recevabilité et le fond des griefs susmentionnés (pour une approche similaire, voir Ali Rıza et autres, précité, § 226, Işıkırık c. Turquie, no 41226/09, § 71, 14 novembre 2017, et Kamil Uzun c. Turquie, no 37410/97, § 64, 10 mai 2007).
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 20233/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 54540/16

  Quant à la nécessité de l'ingérence, la Cour rappelle les principes découlant de sa jurisprudence en matière de liberté d'expression, lesquels sont résumés notamment dans les arrêts Bédat c. Suisse ([GC], no 56925/08, 29 mars 2016) et Kula c. Turquie (no 20233/06, §§ 45-46, 19 juin 2018).
• EGMR, 19.03.2019 - 57031/10

  MART AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 54540/16

  Ainsi, ces décisions ne permettent pas d'établir si la publication en cause, qui portait sur un sujet éloigné du domaine du sport et aurait été supprimée deux heures plus tard selon les dires du requérant, qui ne sont pas contredits par le Gouvernement, était de nature à perturber le climat de paix dans la communauté du football, en ce qu'elles ne démontrent pas, par exemple, qu'elle a incité ou était de nature à inciter des supporters à commettre des actes de violence dans les faits (Mart et autres c. Turquie, no 57031/10, § 32, 19 mars 2019 ; voir aussi, a contrario, Šimunić c. Croatie (déc), no 20373/17, §§ 44-48, 22 janvier 2019).
• EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 44998/98

  A. v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 54540/16

  Elle reconnaît donc que l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention trouve à s'appliquer dans son volet civil notamment quand le requérant fait l'objet d'une interdiction temporaire (Diennet c. France, arrêt du 26 septembre 1995, §§ 11 et 27, série A no 325-A) ou permanente d'exercer son métier (A c. Finlande (déc.), no 44998/98, 8 janvier 2004).
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 20373/17

  SIMUNIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 27.08.2013 - 2935/07

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.07.2026 - 29703/19

  DE CARVALHO MARQUES v. PORTUGAL and 5 other applications

  29978/19, 37235/19, 34185/19, 29703/19 and 3708/22, the Court concludes that they carried out an appropriate balancing exercise between the competing interests at stake, in accordance with the criteria derived from its case-law (see paragraphs 126-127 and 131 above; see also, a contrario, Naki and AMED Sportif Faaliyetler Kulübü Derneği, cited above, §§ 35-37; Sedat Doğan, cited above, §§ 41-42; and İbrahim Tokmak v. Turkey, no. 54540/16, §§ 35-36, 18 May 2021).
• EGMR - 23540/24 (anhängig)

  KETENCI v. TÜRKİYE

  Were the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee of the TFF, which heard the applicant's case, independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ali Rıza and Others v. Turkey, nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 150-61 and 194-222, 28 January 2020; Sedat Doğan v. Turkey, no. 48909/14, §§ 20-21 and 27, 18 May 2021; Naki and AMED Sportif Faaliyetler Kulübü Derneği v. Turkey, no. 48924/16, § 26, 18 May 2021; and İbrahim Tokmak v. Turkey, no. 54540/16, § 22, 18 May 2021)? Additionally, did the modifications to the statutes of the TFF adopted on 16 June 2022 provide sufficient guarantees of the independence and impartiality of both the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee?.
• EGMR - 32836/23 (anhängig)

  KETENCI v. TÜRKİYE and 10 other applications

  Were the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee of the TFF, which heard the applicants' cases, independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ali Rıza and Others v. Turkey, nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 150-61 and 194-222, 28 January 2020; Sedat Doğan v. Turkey, no. 48909/14, §§ 20-21 and 27, 18 May 2021; Naki and AMED Sportif Faaliyetler Kulübü Derneği v. Turkey, no. 48924/16, § 26, 18 May 2021; and İbrahim Tokmak v. Turkey, no. 54540/16, § 22, 18 May 2021)? Additionally, did the modifications to the statutes of the TFF adopted on 16 June 2022 provide sufficient guarantees of the independence and impartiality of both the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee?.

• EGMR - 12145/24 (anhängig)

  İSTANBUL SPOR FAALIYETLERI ANONIM ŞIRKETI AND SARIALIOĞLU v. …

  Were the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee of the TFF, which heard the applicants' case, independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ali Rıza and Others v. Turkey, nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 150-61 and 194-222, 28 January 2020; Sedat Doğan v. Turkey, no. 48909/14, §§ 20-21 and 27, 18 May 2021; Naki and AMED Sportif Faaliyetler Kulübü Derneği v. Turkey, no. 48924/16, § 26, 18 May 2021; and İbrahim Tokmak v. Turkey, no. 54540/16, § 22, 18 May 2021)? Additionally, did the modifications to the statutes of the TFF adopted on 16 June 2022 provide sufficient guarantees of the independence and impartiality of both the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee?.
• EGMR - 26124/23 (anhängig)

  BAKI v. TÜRKIYE

  Were the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee of the TFF, which heard the applicant's case, independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (Ali Rıza and Others v. Turkey, nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 150-161 and 194-222, 28 January 2020; Sedat Doğan v. Turkey, no. 48909/14, §§ 20-21 and 27, 18 May 2021; Naki and AMED Sportif Faaliyetler Kulübü Derneği v. Turkey, no. 48924/16, § 26, 18 May 2021; and İbrahim Tokmak v. Turkey, no. 54540/16, § 22, 18 May 2021)? Additionally, did the modifications to the statutes of the TFF adopted on 16 June 2022 provide sufficient guarantees of the independence and impartiality of both the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee?.
• EGMR - 30124/24 (anhängig)

  KOÇ AND FENERBAHÇE FUTBOL ANONIM ŞIRKETI v. TÜRKİYE

  Were the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee of the TFF, which heard the applicants' cases, independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ali Rıza and Others v. Turkey, nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 150-61 and 194-222, 28 January 2020; Sedat Doğan v. Turkey, no. 48909/14, §§ 20-21 and 27, 18 May 2021; Naki and AMED Sportif Faaliyetler Kulübü Derneği v. Turkey, no. 48924/16, § 26, 18 May 2021; and İbrahim Tokmak v. Turkey, no. 54540/16, § 22, 18 May 2021)? Additionally, did the modifications to the statutes of the TFF adopted on 16 June 2022 provide sufficient guarantees of the independence and impartiality of both the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee?.
• EGMR - 33029/23 (anhängig)

  BAKI AND FENERBAHÇE FUTBOL ANONIM SIRKETI v. TÜRKIYE

  Were the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee of the TFF, which heard the applicants' case, independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (Ali Rıza and Others v. Turkey, nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 150-61 and 194-222, 28 January 2020; Sedat Doğan v. Turkey, no. 48909/14, §§ 20-21 and 27, 18 May 2021; Naki and AMED Sportif Faaliyetler Kulübü Derneği v. Turkey, no. 48924/16, § 26, 18 May 2021; and İbrahim Tokmak v. Turkey, no. 54540/16, § 22, 18 May 2021)? Additionally, did the modifications to the statutes of the TFF adopted on 16 June 2022 provide sufficient guarantees of the independence and impartiality of both the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee?.
• EGMR - 26828/23 (anhängig)

  PUHALOĞLU v. TÜRKİYE

  Was the Arbitration Committee of the TFF, which heard the applicant's case, independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ali Rıza and Others v. Turkey, nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 150-61 and 194-222, 28 January 2020; Sedat Doğan v. Turkey, no. 48909/14, §§ 20-21 and 27, 18 May 2021; Naki and AMED Sportif Faaliyetler Kulübü Derneği v. Turkey, no. 48924/16, § 26, 18 May 2021; and İbrahim Tokmak v. Turkey, no. 54540/16, § 22, 18 May 2021)? Additionally, did the modifications to the statutes of the TFF adopted on 16 June 2022 provide sufficient guarantees of the independence and impartiality of the Arbitration Committee?.
• EGMR - 23990/23 (anhängig)

  BILECIK AND FENERBAHÇE FUTBOL ANONIM ?žIRKETI v. TÜRKIYE

  Were the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee of the TFF, which heard the applicants' case, independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (Ali Rıza and Others v. Turkey, nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 150-161 and 194-222, 28 January 2020; Sedat Doğan v. Turkey, no. 48909/14, §§ 20 and 27, 18 May 2021; Naki and Amed Sportif Faaliyetler Kulübü Derneği v. Turkey, no. 48924/16, § 26, 18 May 2021; and İbrahim Tokmak v. Turkey, no. 54540/16, § 22, 18 May 2021)?.
• EGMR - 9497/25 (anhängig)

  DOS SANTOS MOURINHO FELIX v. TÜRKİYE

  If so, were the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee of the TFF, which heard the applicant's case, independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ali Rıza and Others v. Turkey, nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 150-61 and 194-222, 28 January 2020; Sedat Doğan v. Turkey, no. 48909/14, §§ 20-21 and 27, 18 May 2021; Naki and AMED Sportif Faaliyetler Kulübü Derneği v. Turkey, no. 48924/16, § 26, 18 May 2021; and İbrahim Tokmak v. Turkey, no. 54540/16, § 22, 18 May 2021)? Additionally, did the modifications to the statutes of the TFF adopted on 16 June 2022 provide sufficient guarantees of the independence and impartiality of both the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee?.