Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 48226/10, 14027/11   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2015,35734
EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 48226/10, 14027/11 (https://dejure.org/2015,35734)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01.12.2015 - 48226/10, 14027/11 (https://dejure.org/2015,35734)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01. Dezember 2015 - 48226/10, 14027/11 (https://dejure.org/2015,35734)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,35734) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (13)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CENGIZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

    Violation de l'article 10 - Liberté d'expression-Générale (Article 10-1 - Liberté de communiquer des idées;Liberté de communiquer des informations;Liberté de recevoir des idées;Liberté de recevoir des informations);Préjudice moral - constat de violation ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

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

    [DEU] Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart ideas;Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive ideas;Freedom to receive information);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CENGIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY - [Macedonian Translation] summary by the COE Human Rights Trust Fund

    [MAC] Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart ideas;Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive ideas;Freedom to receive information);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CENGIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY - [Macedonian Translation] by the COE Human Rights Trust Fund

    [MAC] Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart ideas;Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive ideas;Freedom to receive information);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CENGIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY - [Azerbaijani Translation] summary by the COE Human Rights Trust Fund

    [AZE] Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart ideas;Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive ideas;Freedom to receive information);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CENGIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY - [Azerbaijani Translation] by the COE Human Rights Trust Fund

    [AZE] Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart ideas;Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive ideas;Freedom to receive information);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CENGIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY - [Turkish Translation] by the Turkish Ministry of Justice

    [TUR] Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart ideas;Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive ideas;Freedom to receive information);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CENGIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY - [Polish Translation] by the Polish Supreme Administrative Court

    [POL] Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-General (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart ideas;Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive ideas;Freedom to receive information);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CENGIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY - [Swedish Translation] by the Swedish National Courts Administration

    [SWE] Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart ideas;Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive ideas;Freedom to receive information);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CENGIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY - [Czech Translation] summary by the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic

    [CZE] Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart ideas;Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive ideas;Freedom to receive information);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CENGIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY - [Turkish Translation] summary by the Turkish Ministry of Justice

    [TUR] Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart ideas;Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive ideas;Freedom to receive information);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CENGIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY - [Georgian Translation] legal summary by the Human Rights Centre, Supreme Court of Georgia

    [GEO] Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart ideas;Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive ideas;Freedom to receive information);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - ...

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (5)

  • urheberrecht.org (Kurzinformation)

    YouTube-Sperre in der Türkei verstößt gegen Menschenrechte

  • lto.de (Kurzinformation)

    Youtube-Sperre in der Türkei verstößt gegen Menschenrechte

  • archive.is (Pressebericht, 01.12.2015)

    Türkei: YouTube-Sperrung war unzulässig

  • spiegel.de (Pressemeldung, 01.12.2015)

    Türkei wegen YouTube-Blockade verurteilt

  • juraforum.de (Kurzinformation)

    Türkei durfte YouTube nicht sperren

Besprechungen u.ä.

  • lehofer.at (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

    Ein Grundrecht auf YouTube-Zugang? Türkei wegen YouTube-Sperre verurteilt

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (13)

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 16.07.2020 - C-682/18

    YouTube - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Geistiges Eigentum - Urheberrecht und

    223 Vgl. u. a. Urteil GS Media, Rn. 45, und EGMR, 18. Dezember 2012, Ahmet Yildirim/Türkei, CE:ECHR:2012:1218JUD000311110, § 54, und EGMR, 1. Dezember 2015, Cengiz u. a./Türkei, CE:ECHR:2015:1201JUD004822610, § 49. Vgl. im selben Sinne auch EGMR, 10. März 2009, Times Newspapers Ltd/Vereinigtes Königreich (Nrn. 1 und 2), CE:ECHR:2009:0310JUD000300203, § 27, und EGMR, 10. Januar 2013, Ashby Donald u. a./Frankreich, CE:ECHR:2013:0110JUD003676908, § 34.

    224 EGMR, 1. Dezember 2015, Cengiz u. a./Türkei, CE:ECHR:2015:1201JUD004822610, §§ 51 und 52. Vgl. in diesem Sinne auch Urteil vom 14. Februar 2019, Buivids (C-345/17, EU:C:2019:122, Rn. 56 und 57).

  • EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 17429/10

    KALDA v. ESTONIA

    48226/10 and 14027/11, §§ 47-58, 1 December 2015).
  • EGMR, 20.01.2020 - 201/17

    MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY

    The blocking of these services was found to deprive users of a significant means of exercising their right to freedom to receive and impart information and ideas (see Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, nos. 48226/10 and 14027/11, § 54, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 10795/14

    VLADIMIR KHARITONOV v. RUSSIA

    The Government contended that, unlike Russia, Turkey had banned thousands of websites, including popular services such as YouTube, GeoCities and Dailymotion (they referred to Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, nos. 48226/10 and 14027/11, ECHR 2015 (extracts), which concerned the blocking of YouTube).
  • EGMR, 04.05.2021 - 41139/15

    AKDENIZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

    Akdeniz et Altiparmak, et a accepté d'examiner leur action en contestation de deux décisions de blocage d'accès relatives aux sites «twitter.com» et «YouTube.com» (Cengiz et autres c. Turquie, nos 48226/10 et 14027/11, §§ 25-26, 1er décembre 2015 (extraits)).
  • EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 48310/16

    KABLIS v. RUSSIA

    In particular, Article 10 requires the authorities to take into consideration, among other aspects, the fact that such a measure, by rendering large quantities of information inaccessible, is bound to substantially restrict the rights of Internet users and to have a significant collateral effect on the material that has not been found to be illegal (see Ahmet Yildirim, cited above, § 66, and Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, nos. 48226/10 and 14027/11, § 64, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
  • EGMR - 15962/15 (anhängig)

    SAMARA LRO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications

    Did the decisions pronouncing the religious literature of Jehovah's Witnesses to be extremist material, confiscating it and banning it from circulation in Russia, and blocking access to the website containing such literature, amount to an interference with the rights of individual applicants, guaranteed under Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention (compare Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, nos. 48226/10 and 14027/11, §§ 47-58, ECHR 2015 (extracts))?.
  • EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 12468/15

    OOO FLAVUS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    The measure which prevented visitors to the applicants" websites from accessing their content amounted to "interference by a public authority" with the right to receive and impart information, since Article 10 guarantees not only the right to impart information but also the right of the public to receive it (see Ahmet Yildirim, cited above, §§ 51 and 55, and Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, nos. 48226/10 and 14027/11, § 56, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 20159/15

    BULGAKOV v. RUSSIA

    The measure which prevented visitors to the applicant's website from accessing its content amounted to "interference by a public authority" with the right to receive and impart information, since Article 10 guarantees not only the right to impart information but also the right of the public to receive it (see Ahmet Yildirim, cited above, §§ 51 and 55, and Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, nos. 48226/10 and 14027/11, § 56, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 61919/16

    ENGELS v. RUSSIA

    It amounted therefore to "interference by a public authority" with the right to receive and impart information, since Article 10 guarantees not only the right to impart information but also the right of the public to receive it (see Ahmet Yildirim, cited above, §§ 51 and 55, and Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, nos. 48226/10 and 14027/11, § 56, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 75865/11

    CENTRE FOR DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR - 10509/20 (anhängig)

    DEMIRHAN c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR - 5568/20 (anhängig)

    AKDENIZ ET ALTiPARMAK c. TURQUIE

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht