Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SARITAS AND GEYIK v. TURKEY

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SARITAS AND GEYIK v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 70107/11

  Taking into account 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 applicants' complaint under Article 6 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, 19.01.2016 - 17526/10

  GÜLCÜ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 70107/11

  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 violations of Article 10 of the Convention (see, for example, Savgın v. Turkey, no. 13304/03, §§ 39-48, 2 February 2010; Gül and Others, cited above, §§ 32-45; Kılıç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, §§ 20-31, 29 November 2011; Faruk Temel, cited above, §§ 58-64; and Gülcü v. Turkey, no. 17526/10, §§ 113 and 117, 19 January 2016).
• EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 16853/05

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 70107/11

  Referring, in particular, to the Court's judgments in Gül and Others v. Turkey (no. 4870/02, 8 June 2010) and Faruk Temel v. Turkey (no. 16853/05, 1 February 2011), the applicants claimed that their conviction was not necessary in a democratic society.

• EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 50171/09

  BELGE v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 70107/11

  The relevant domestic law applicable at the material time can be found in Belge v. Turkey (no. 50171/09, § 19, 6 December 2016).
• EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 43807/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 70107/11

  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 violations of Article 10 of the Convention (see, for example, Savgın v. Turkey, no. 13304/03, §§ 39-48, 2 February 2010; Gül and Others, cited above, §§ 32-45; Kılıç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, §§ 20-31, 29 November 2011; Faruk Temel, cited above, §§ 58-64; and Gülcü v. Turkey, no. 17526/10, §§ 113 and 117, 19 January 2016).
• EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 8077/08

  KAÇMAZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 70107/11

  Nonetheless, the Court has already rejected similar objections by the respondent Government (see Atılgan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 14495/11, 14531/11, 26274/11, 78923/11, 8408/12, 11848/12, 12078/12, 12103/12, 14745/12, 21910/12 and 41087/12, § 12, 27 January 2015, and Şakir Kaçmaz v. Turkey, no. 8077/08, § 62, 10 November 2015) and in the present case finds no reason to depart from that conclusion.
• EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 51962/12

  ÖNER AND TÜRK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 70107/11

  As regards the Government's submission that the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies, the Court notes that the remedy referred to by the Government does not provide a substantive review of the case (see Öner and Türk v. Turkey, no. 51962/12, § 17, 31 March 2015).
• EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02

  GÜL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 70107/11

  Referring, in particular, to the Court's judgments in Gül and Others v. Turkey (no. 4870/02, 8 June 2010) and Faruk Temel v. Turkey (no. 16853/05, 1 February 2011), the applicants claimed that their conviction was not necessary in a democratic society.
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 13304/03

  SAVGIN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 70107/11

  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 violations of Article 10 of the Convention (see, for example, Savgın v. Turkey, no. 13304/03, §§ 39-48, 2 February 2010; Gül and Others, cited above, §§ 32-45; Kılıç and Eren v. Turkey, no. 43807/07, §§ 20-31, 29 November 2011; Faruk Temel, cited above, §§ 58-64; and Gülcü v. Turkey, no. 17526/10, §§ 113 and 117, 19 January 2016).
• EGMR, 09.12.2015 - 14495/11

  ATILGAN ET AUTRES CONTRE LA TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 70107/11

  Nonetheless, the Court has already rejected similar objections by the respondent Government (see Atılgan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 14495/11, 14531/11, 26274/11, 78923/11, 8408/12, 11848/12, 12078/12, 12103/12, 14745/12, 21910/12 and 41087/12, § 12, 27 January 2015, and Şakir Kaçmaz v. Turkey, no. 8077/08, § 62, 10 November 2015) and in the present case finds no reason to depart from that conclusion.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 64375/12

  DÜZEL AGAINST TURKEY AND 20 OTHER CASES

  70107/11.
• 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).