Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POLAT AND TALI v. TURKEY

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  POLAT AND TALI v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 43807/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 5782/10

  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).

  In this connection, the Court notes that there is no indication in the case file that the people who had visited the exhibition engaged in acts of violence after visiting it (see Kılıç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, § 27, 29 November 2011).

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24919/94

  GERGER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 5782/10

  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).
• EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 16853/05

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 5782/10

  Moreover, the Court is prepared to accept that, in the present case, the national authorities may be considered to have pursued the legitimate aims of protecting national security and preventing disorder and crime (see Faruk Temel v. Turkey, no. 16853/05, § 52, 1 February 2011).

• EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 50171/09

  BELGE v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 5782/10

  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).
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 12606/11

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 5782/10

  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).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 25067/94

  ERDOGDU ET INCE c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 5782/10

  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).
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 13304/03

  SAVGIN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 5782/10

  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).
• EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02

  GÜL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 5782/10

  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).
• EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 33347/04

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 5782/10

  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).
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 2891/12

  CZERNUSZEWICZ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 5782/10

  In these circumstances, the Court is led to conclude that the second applicant failed to exhaust the domestic remedies (see, mutatis mutandis, Czernuszewicz v. Poland (dec.) [Committee], no. 2891/12, 19 January 2016).
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 52709/99

  ULUSOY v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 50934/99

  KOÇ AND TAMBAS v. TURKEY

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 64375/12

  DÜZEL AGAINST TURKEY AND 20 OTHER CASES

  5782/10.
• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 69270/12

  ÖZER v. TURKEY

  Elle a conclu, dans ces affaires, que ces écrits, déclarations et actes, même s'ils avaient parfois un caractère hostile et véhiculaient des critiques acerbes à l'égard des autorités étatiques ou des opinions susceptibles d'être considérées favorables à l'égard de certaines organisations illégales ou de leurs dirigeants ou membres, pris dans leur ensemble, ne pouvaient être regardés comme contenant un appel à l'usage de la violence, à la résistance armée ou au soulèvement, ni comme constituant un discours de haine, et qu'ils n'étaient pas non plus susceptibles de favoriser la violence en insufflant une haine profonde et irrationnelle envers des personnes identifiées, tout en précisant qu'il s'agissait là, à ses yeux, d'éléments essentiels à prendre en considération (voir, à cet égard, Ayhan c. Turquie (no 1), no 45585/99, § 38, 10 novembre 2004, Gül et autres c. Turquie, no 4870/02, §§ 41 et 42, 8 juin 2010, Çamyar et Berktaş c. Turquie, no 41959/02, §§ 40-42, 15 février 2011, Yavuz et Yaylalı, précité, § 52, Faruk Temel, précité, § 62, Öner et Türk, précité, § 24, Belge, précité, §§ 34 et 35, Fatih Taş c. Turquie (no 2), no 6813/09, § 18, 10 octobre 2017, Selahattin Demirtaş, précité, § 31, Bayar c. Turquie [comité], no 24548/10, § 23, 19 juin 2018, Sarıtaş et Geyik c. Turquie [comité], no 70107/11, § 26, 19 juin 2018, Arslan et autres c. Turquie [comité], no 3752/11, § 29, 10 juillet 2018, Dündar et Aydınkaya c. Turquie [comité], no 37091/11, § 24, 10 juillet 2018, Polat et Tali c. Turquie [comité], no 5782/10, §§ 31 et 32, 25 septembre 2018, Özbay [comité], précité, § 45, Uçar c. Turquie [comité], no 53319/10, § 24, 5 mars 2019, Polat [comité], précité, § 30, Dağtekin c. Turquie [comité], no 69448/10, § 25, 28 mai 2019, Taş Çakar c. Turquie [comité], no 73487/12, § 23, 28 mai 2019, Kılınç c. Turquie [comité], no 73954/11, 2 juillet 2019, Ete c. Turquie [comité], no 35575/12, § 25, 3 septembre 2019, Kalkan c. Turquie [comité], no 21196/12, § 22, 1er octobre 2019, Aramaz c. Turquie [comité], no 62928/12, §§ 19 et 20, 1er octobre 2019, Yamaç c. Turquie [comité], nos 69604/12 et 5642/13, § 34, 1er octobre 2019, et Kalkan c. Turquie [comité], no 54698/13, 1er octobre 2019).
• EGMR, 02.04.2019 - 79045/11

  BAYAR c. TURQUIE et 2 autres affaires

  S'agissant de la seconde exception du Gouvernement, elle rappelle avoir déjà jugé que la voie d'opposition devant la cour d'assises pour contester une décision de sursis au prononcé d'un jugement était une voie de recours à épuiser (Polat et Tali c. Turquie (no 5782/10, § 23, 25 septembre 2018).