Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FATIH TAS v. TURKEY (No. 2)

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  TAS c. TURQUIE

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [FRA]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 6813/09
• EGMR, 16.10.2019 - 6813/09

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTER OF LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 6813/09

  Having regard to the facts of the case and its finding of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention, the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility or the merits of the applicant's complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 6813/09

  They lastly contended that the circumstances of the case were similar to the case of Sürek v. Turkey ((no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, ECHR 1999-IV) in which the Court found no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 17526/10

  GÜLCÜ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 6813/09

  As to the merits, the Court notes at the outset that it has already held in cases concerning Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention where the pronouncement of the applicants' convictions had been suspended that there was nonetheless an interference with their rights guaranteed under the aforementioned Articles (see Şükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey, nos. 49197/06 and 4 others, § 44, 22 January 2013; Gülcü v. Turkey, no. 17526/10, §§ 98-102, 19 January 2016).

• EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 16853/05

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 6813/09

  The Court is also 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, 10.10.2017 - 6813/09

  The relevant domestic law applicable at the material time can be found in Belge v. Turkey (no. 50171/09, § 19, 6 December 2016).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24762/94

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 4)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 6813/09

  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 other cases and found violations of Article 10 of the Convention (see, for example, Sürek c. Turquie (no. 4) [GC], no. 24762/94, §§ 54-61, 8 July 1999; Erdoğdu v. Turkey, no. 25723/94, §§ 60-73, ECHR 2000-VI; Demirel and Ateş v. Turkey (no. 3), no. 11976/03, §§ 19-30, 9 December 2008).
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 11976/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 6813/09

  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 other cases and found violations of Article 10 of the Convention (see, for example, Sürek c. Turquie (no. 4) [GC], no. 24762/94, §§ 54-61, 8 July 1999; Erdoğdu v. Turkey, no. 25723/94, §§ 60-73, ECHR 2000-VI; Demirel and Ateş v. Turkey (no. 3), no. 11976/03, §§ 19-30, 9 December 2008).
• EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 50934/99

  KOÇ AND TAMBAS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 6813/09

  In the Court's opinion, that condition entailed real and effective restraint and had a deterrent effect on his very profession (see Erdoğdu v. Turkey, no. 25723/94, § 72, ECHR 2000-VI, and Koç and Tambaş v. Turkey, no. 50934/99, § 39, 21 March 2006).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 57069/09

  ZENGIN AND ÇAKIR v. TURKEY

  As to the merits of the case, the Court considers that, although the pronouncement of the convictions was suspended, the applicants' convictions amounted to an "interference" with the exercise of their right to freedom of expression (see Şükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey, nos. 49197/06 and 4 others, § 44, 22 January 2013; Gülcü v. Turkey, no. 17526/10, §§ 98-102, 19 January 2016; and Fatih Taş v. Turkey (No. 2), no. 6813/09, § 15, 10 October 2017).