Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DUZGOREN v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 regarding the independence and impartiality of the military court Violation of Art. 10 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 56827/00
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 56827/00

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.10.2002 - 37645/97

  SAWICKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 56827/00

  The Court may make an award in respect of costs and expenses in so far as these were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Sawicka v. Poland, no. 37645/97, § 54, 1 October 2002).
• EGMR, 13.12.2007 - 40998/98

  ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN SHIPPING LINES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 56827/00

  The Court reiterates that a remedy under Article 13 of the Convention does not mean a remedy bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of the complaint (see the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Turkey (dec.), no. 40998/98, 10 April 2003).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 56827/00

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, Sener v. Turkey, no. 26680/95, §§ 39-42, 18 July 2000; Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 64, ECHR 1999-VI; and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I).

• EKMR, 16.05.1977 - 7050/75

  ARROWSMITH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 56827/00

  In addition, the context in which the opinions were expressed can be distinguished, as regards their potential impact, from that of the Arrowsmith case, in which the applicant, a pacifist activist, had distributed a leaflet inciting servicemen to desert at a military camp occupied by troops who were shortly to be posted to Northern Ireland (see Arrowsmith v. the United Kingdom, no. 7050/75, Commission's report of 12 October 1978, Decisions and Reports (DR) 19, p. 5).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 22479/93

  ÖZTÜRK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 56827/00

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, Sener v. Turkey, no. 26680/95, §§ 39-42, 18 July 2000; Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 64, ECHR 1999-VI; and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 43425/98

  Meinungsfreiheit (konstitutive Bedeutung in der Demokratie; Eingriff; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 56827/00

  Furthermore, the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are also factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of the interference (see Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, § 42, 27 May 2003).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24919/94

  GERGER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 56827/00

  It considers that, although the words used in the impugned article give it a connotation hostile to military service, they do not encourage violence, armed resistance or insurrection and do not constitute hate speech (see Ergin (no. 6), cited above, § 34; 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, 18.07.2000 - 26680/95

  SENER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 56827/00

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, in particular, Sener v. Turkey, no. 26680/95, §§ 39-42, 18 July 2000; Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 64, ECHR 1999-VI; and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 50934/99

  KOÇ AND TAMBAS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 56827/00

  In particular, it must determine whether the interference in question was "proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued" and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient" (see Koç and Tambas v. Turkey, no. 50934/99, § 36, 21 March 2006).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 43965/04

  [FRE]

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà examiné des griefs similaires à celui présenté par le requérant et qu'elle a alors conclu à la violation de l'article 6 de la Convention (Ergin c. Turquie (no 6), no 47533/99, § 54, CEDH 2006-VI (extraits), et Düzgören c. Turquie, no 56827/00, § 20, 9 novembre 2006), jugeant notamment qu'il était compréhensible qu'un civil qui répondait devant un tribunal composé exclusivement de militaires d'infractions relatives à la propagande contre le service militaire ait redouté de comparaître devant des juges appartenant à l'armée, laquelle pouvait être assimilée à une partie à la procédure, que, de ce fait, l'intéressé pouvait légitimement craindre que le Tribunal de l'état-major se laissât indûment guider par des considérations partiales, et que l'on pouvait donc considérer qu'étaient objectivement justifiés les doutes nourris par lui quant à l'indépendance et à l'impartialité de cette juridiction.
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 35132/05

  [FRE]

  Bien entendu, cette jurisprudence n'enlevait rien au fait qu'un tribunal militaire ne pouvait généralement pas être considéré comme un tribunal indépendant et impartial dans la mesure où il devait juger un civil en matière pénale (voir, par exemple, Ergin c. Turquie (no 6), no 47533/99, §§ 38-54, CEDH 2006-VI (extraits), Düzgören c. Turquie, no 56827/00, §§ 20-21, 9 novembre 2006, Bülbül c. Turquie, no 47297/99, §§ 20-28, 22 mai 2007, Onaran c. Turquie, no 65344/01, § 19, 5 juin 2007, Özel et autres c. Turquie, no 37626/02, § 29, 31 janvier 2008, Satık c. Turquie (no 2), no 60999/00, §§ 40-49, 8 juillet 2008, et İçen c. Turquie, no 45912/06, §§ 28-46, 31 mai 2011).
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 60999/00

  SATIK v. TURKEY (No. 2)

  In this respect, the circumstances of the present case differ from those of the Ergin case and other similar cases (see Düzgören v. Turkey, no. 56827/00, 9 November 2006) where the assessment of the acts at issue did not require special expertise and did not concern national security.

• EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 4211/02

  ERÜKCÜ c. TURQUIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà traité d'affaires soulevant des questions semblables à celles du cas d'espèce et dans lesquelles elle a conclu à la violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (Ergin (no 6), précité, § 54 ; Onaran c. Turquie, no 65344/01, §§ 18-19, 5 juin 2007 ; Düzgören c. Turquie, no 56827/00, §§ 20-22, 9 novembre 2006 ; Özel et autres c. Turquie, no 37626/02, §§ 28-30, 31 janvier 2008).
• EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 37626/02

  ÖZEL ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  La Cour a traité d'affaires soulevant des questions semblables à celles du cas d'espèce et a constaté la violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (Ergin (no 6), précité, § 54 ; Onaran c. Turquie, no 65344/01, §§ 18-19, 5 juin 2007 ; Düzgören v. Turkey, no 56827/00, § 20-22, 9 novembre 2006).
• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 70335/01

  YURDATAPAN v. TURKEY

  The Court recalls that it had already examined the contents of the leaflet in question in its judgment in the case of Düzgören v. Turkey (application no. 56827/00, §§ 23-34, 9 November 2006).