Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KARAPETYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

  No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KARAPETYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 59001/08

  While the Court has admitted that it is legitimate for a State to impose on civil servants, on account of their status, a duty of discretion, civil servants are individuals and, as such, qualify for the protection of Article 10 of the Convention (see Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 53, Series A no. 323; and Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, § 140, ECHR 2016).

  In such cases, it falls to the Court, having regard to the circumstances of each case, to determine whether a fair balance has been struck between the fundamental rights of the individual to freedom of expression and the legitimate interests of a democratic State in ensuring that its civil service properly furthers the purposes enumerated in Article 10 § 2 (see Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 53, Series A no. 323).

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 59001/08

  Freedom of expression, as enshrined in Article 10, is subject to a number of exceptions which, however, must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions must be convincingly established (see, for example, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24; Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 41, Series A no. 103; and Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 37, Series A no. 298).

  Freedom of expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24).

• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 59001/08

  Accordingly, many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague and whose interpretation and application are a question of practice (see Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 49, Series A no. 30; and mutatis mutandis, Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 40, Series A no. 260-A).

• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  Kokkinakis ./. Griechenland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 59001/08

  Accordingly, many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague and whose interpretation and application are a question of practice (see Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 49, Series A no. 30; and mutatis mutandis, Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 40, Series A no. 260-A).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 59001/08

  Freedom of expression, as enshrined in Article 10, is subject to a number of exceptions which, however, must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions must be convincingly established (see, for example, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24; Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 41, Series A no. 103; and Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 37, Series A no. 298).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 59001/08

  The Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly made by a national court, unless and insofar as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 29.02.2000 - 39293/98

  FUENTES BOBO c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 59001/08

  In this connection, I note that the Court has usually considered dismissal from employment to be a very harsh measure, particularly when other more lenient and more appropriate disciplinary sanctions could or should have been envisaged (see, for example, in other contexts, Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. 14277/04, § 95, ECHR 2008; Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, no. 39293/98, § 48, 29 February 2000, and Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 98, 26 February 2009).
• EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 29764/09

  KÜÇÜKBALABAN ET KUTLU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 59001/08

  However, such a measure should not be applied in a general manner which could affect the essence of the right protected, without having in mind the functions and the role of the civil servant in question, and, in particular, the circumstances of each case (see, mutatis mutandis, Küçükbalaban and Kutlu v. Turkey, nos. 29764/09 and 36297/09, § 34, 24 March 2015; and Dedecan and Ok v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 22685/09

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 59001/08

  22685/09 and 39472/09, § 38, 22 September 2015).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 35786/19

  MELIKE c. TURQUIE

  La Cour tient à souligner aussi que la requérante n'était pas une fonctionnaire de l'État portant un lien particulier de confiance et de loyauté envers son administration (voir à cet égard, Karapetyan et autres c. Arménie, no 59001/08, § 54, 17 novembre 2016), mais une employée contractuelle soumis au droit de travail.
• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 36658/18

  ZHABLYANOV v. BULGARIA

  (j) dismissals of civil servants (see Haseldine v. the United Kingdom, no. 18957/91, Commission decision of 13 May 1992, Decisions and Reports (DR) 73, p. 225; Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 44, Series A no. 323; Petersen v. Germany (dec.), no. 39793/98, 22 November 2001; Volkmer v. Germany (dec.), no. 39799/98, 22 November 2001; De Diego Nafría v. Spain, no. 46833/99, § 30, 14 March 2002; Kern v. Germany (dec.), no. 26870/04, 29 May 2007; Langner v. Germany, no. 14464/11, § 39, 17 September 2015; Karapetyan and Others v. Armenia, no. 59001/08, § 36, 17 November 2016; and Catalan v. Romania, no. 13003/04, § 44, 9 January 2018);.
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 58512/16

  CIMPERSEK v. SLOVENIA

  It further notes that it has previously found similar domestic legal provisions to be sufficiently foreseeable for the purposes of the Convention (see Fernández Martínez, cited above, §§ 117-121; Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 126, 17 May 2016; Travaš v. Croatia, no. 75581/13, §§ 78-85, 4 October 2016; and Karapetyan and Others v. Armenia, no. 59001/08, §§ 37-43, 17 November 2016).

• EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 33794/14

  PANIOGLU v. ROMANIA

  Accordingly, many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague and whose interpretation and application are a question of practice (see Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 49, Series A no. 30; Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 131-133, ECHR 2015 (extracts)); and Karapetyan and Others v. Armenia, no. 59001/08, § 39, 17 November 2016).
• EGMR, 04.02.2025 - 50763/22

  ERCAN c. TÜRKIYE et 20 autres affaires

  Rn. 37 La Cour renvoie aux principes exposés dans sa jurisprudence concernant la liberté d'expression des fonctionnaires de l'État (Vogt c. Allemagne, 26 septembre 1995, § 53, série A no 323, Kayasu c. Turquie, nos 64119/00 et 76292/01, § 77, 13 novembre 2008, et Karapetyan et autres c. Arménie, no 59001/08, § 47, 17 novembre 2016), et plus spécialement celle des enseignants (Gollnisch c. France (déc.), no 48135/08, 7 juin 2011 et Mahi c. Belgique (déc.), no 57462/19, § 32, 7 juillet 2020).
• EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 74729/17

  AYUSO TORRES v. SPAIN

  Given the applicant's military status, the Court considers that the respondent State, in its assessment on whether to institute disciplinary proceedings, was entitled to have regard to the requirement that military personnel, such as the applicant, respected and ensured the special bond of trust and loyalty between him and the State in the performance of his functions (compare Karapetyan and Others v. Armenia, no. 59001/08, § 54, 17 November 2016).
• EGMR, 16.03.2021 - 58125/09

  SAHIN (KELES) c. TURQUIE

  Aussi, beaucoup de lois se servent-elles, par la force des choses, de formules plus ou moins vagues dont l'interprétation et l'application dépendent de la pratique (Sunday Times c. Royaume-Uni (no 1), 26 avril 1979, § 49, série A no 30, et Karapetyan et autres c. Arménie, no 59001/08, § 39, 17 novembre 2016).
• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 8035/20

  ÖZBARIS DEMIRER c. TURQUIE

  Rn. 28 Quant à la nécessité de l'ingérence, elle renvoie aux principes exposés dans sa jurisprudence concernant la liberté d'expression des fonctionnaires de l'État (Vogt c. Allemagne, 26 septembre 1995, § 53, série A no 323, Kayasu c. Turquie, nos 64119/00 et 76292/01, § 77, 13 novembre 2008, et Karapetyan et autres c. Arménie, no 59001/08, § 47, 17 novembre 2016), et plus spécialement celle des enseignants (Mahi, décision précitée, § 32, et Gollnisch c. France (déc.), no 48135/08, 7 juin 2011).
• EGMR, 18.07.2023 - 26360/19

  MANOLE c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Quant au moyen tiré du non-respect de l'article 8 de la Convention et du caractère disproportionné de la sanction, renvoyant à la jurisprudence de la CEDH (Denisov c. Ukraine [GC], no 76639/11, § 98, 25 septembre 2018, et voir, mutatis mutandis, Karapetyan et autres c. Arménie, no 59001/08, § 50, 17 novembre 2016), la Cour suprême jugea que la requérante ne pouvait pas se prévaloir de cette disposition puisque la sanction en question était la conséquence prévisible de la méconnaissance des dispositions précitées de la loi no 544/1995.
• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 70643/17

  ZSOMBOK v. HUNGARY

  Rn. 23 At the same time, the Court is mindful that even outside the context of elections, States must allow a certain space in domestic public debate even in difficult times for the participation of civil servants, in particular where their experience and expertise may be conducive to an informed debate on issues of public interest and importance (see Karapetyan and Others v. Armenia, no. 59001/08, § 58, 17 November 2016).