Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  YiLDiRiM v. TURKEY

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

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 17526/10

  GÜLCÜ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 74054/11

  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, cited above, §§ 39 - 48; 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, 25.09.2018 - 74054/11

  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, 25.09.2018 - 74054/11

  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, 25.09.2018 - 74054/11

  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, cited above, §§ 39 - 48; 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, 21.01.2014 - 21377/03

  PERIHAN AND MEZOPOTAMYA BASIN YAYIN A.S. v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 74054/11

  v. Turkey, no. 21377/03, §§ 48 - 49, 21 January 2014).
• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 36475/10

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 74054/11

  Hence, by acknowledging some of the facts concerning the exercise of his freedom of expression, the applicant must be considered to have raised his complaint under Article 10 of the Convention in substance before the national courts (see Ulusoy v. Turkey, no. 52709/99, § 38, 31 July 2007; Yılmaz and Kılıç, no. 68514/10, § 43, 17 July 2008; and Agit Demir v. Turkey, no. 36475/10, §§ 66 - 67, 27 February 2018[2]; see also Özgür Radyo-Ses Radyo Televizyon Yayın Yapım Ve Tanıtım A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 1), nos.
• EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02

  GÜL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 74054/11

  Referring in particular to the Court's judgments in Savgın v. Turkey (no. 13304/03, 2 February 2010) and Gül and Others v. Turkey (no. 4870/02, 8 June 2010), the applicant claimed that his conviction had not been necessary in a democratic society.
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 13304/03

  SAVGIN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 74054/11

  Referring in particular to the Court's judgments in Savgın v. Turkey (no. 13304/03, 2 February 2010) and Gül and Others v. Turkey (no. 4870/02, 8 June 2010), the applicant claimed that his conviction had not been necessary in a democratic society.
• EGMR, 30.03.2006 - 64178/00

  OZGUR RADYO-SES RADYO TELEVIZYON YAYIN YAPIM VE TANITIM AS. c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 74054/11

  64178/00 and 4 others, § 68, 30 March 2006, and Perihan and Mezopotamya Basın Yayın A.Ş.
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 52709/99

  ULUSOY v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 74054/11

  Hence, by acknowledging some of the facts concerning the exercise of his freedom of expression, the applicant must be considered to have raised his complaint under Article 10 of the Convention in substance before the national courts (see Ulusoy v. Turkey, no. 52709/99, § 38, 31 July 2007; Yılmaz and Kılıç, no. 68514/10, § 43, 17 July 2008; and Agit Demir v. Turkey, no. 36475/10, §§ 66 - 67, 27 February 2018[2]; see also Özgür Radyo-Ses Radyo Televizyon Yayın Yapım Ve Tanıtım A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 1), nos.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 69270/12

  ÖZER v. TURKEY

  La Cour a ainsi considéré dans ce deuxième groupe d'affaires que: les autorités nationales n'avaient pas apporté une motivation satisfaisante ou des motifs pertinents et suffisants pour justifier la condamnation pénale des requérants et des explications suffisantes notamment sur la question de savoir si les écrits, déclarations ou actes litigieux pouvaient, eu égard à leur contenu, au contexte dans lequel ils s'inscrivaient et à leur capacité de nuire, être considérés comme renfermant une incitation à l'usage de la violence, à la résistance armée ou au soulèvement, ou comme constituant un discours de haine ; elles n'avaient pas procédé à une analyse appropriée au regard de tous les critères énoncés et mis en œuvre par elle dans les affaires relatives à la liberté d'expression ; ou elles n'avaient pas effectué une mise en balance adéquate et conforme aux critères établis par sa jurisprudence entre le droit du requérant à la liberté d'expression et les buts légitimes poursuivis (voir, à cet égard, Halis c. Turquie, no 30007/96, § 35, 11 janvier 2005, Menteş c. Turquie (no 2), no 33347/04, § 51, 25 janvier 2011, Fatih Taş c. Turquie (no 4), no 51511/08, § 38, 24 avril 2018, Mart et autres c. Turquie, no 57031/10, § 31, 19 mars 2019, Yigin c. Turquie [comité], no 36643/09, § 23, 30 janvier 2018, Zengin et Çakır c. Turquie [comité], no 57069/09, § 19, 13 février 2018, Yüksel [comité], précité, §§ 24-26, Ayaydın c. Turquie [comité], no 20509/10, § 20, 25 septembre 2018, Varhan c. Turquie [comité], no 2433/12, § 22, 25 septembre 2018, Kınık c. Turquie [comité], no 39047/11, § 29, 25 septembre 2018, Düzel c. Turquie [comité], no 64375/12, § 21, 25 septembre 2018, Yıldırım c. Turquie [comité], no 74054/11, §§ 20-22, 25 septembre 2018, Gül [comité], précité, §§ 23-25, Aydemir et Karavil c. Turquie [comité], no 16624/12, § 21, 9 octobre 2018, Akyüz c. Turquie [comité], no 63681/12, § 21, 7 mai 2019, Dağtekin c. Turquie [comité], no 33513/11, § 25, 28 mai 2019, Kok c. Turquie [comité], no 32954/12, § 22, 2 juillet 2019, Yıldız c. Turquie [comité], no 66575/12, 3 septembre 2019, Yıldız et autres c. Turquie [comité], no 39543/11, §§ 25-26, 1er octobre 2019, Aktaş et autres c. Turquie [comité], no 22112/12, § 21, 1er octobre 2019, et Cin c. Turquie [comité], no 31605/12, § 20, 1er octobre 2019).