Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1999,23521
EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95 (https://dejure.org/1999,23521)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08.07.1999 - 26682/95 (https://dejure.org/1999,23521)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08. Juli 1999 - 26682/95 (https://dejure.org/1999,23521)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1999,23521) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
    Non-violation de l'art. 10 Violation de l'art. 6-1 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SÜREK v. TURKEY (No. 1)

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
    No violation of Art. 10 Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (137)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94

    CEYLAN c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95
    The President of the Court, Mr L. Wildhaber, decided that, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, a single Grand Chamber should be constituted to hear the instant case and twelve other cases against Turkey, namely: Karatas v. Turkey (application no. 23168/94); Arslan v. Turkey (no. 23462/94); Polat v. Turkey (no. 23500/94); Ceylan v. Turkey (no. 23556/94); OkçuoÄ?lu v. Turkey (no. 24246/94); Gerger v. Turkey (no. 24919/94); ErdoÄ?du and Ä°nce v. Turkey (nos. 25067/94 and 25068/94); Baskaya and OkçuoÄ?lu v. Turkey (nos. 23536/94 and 24408/94); Sürek and Özdemir v. Turkey (nos. 23927/94 and 24277/94); Sürek v. Turkey (no. 2) (no. 24122/94); Sürek v. Turkey (no. 3) (no. 24735/94); and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 4) (no. 24762/94).

    The applicant, who has done no more than to describe, admittedly in violent and shocking terms, what is happening in the region, has not said any more in his comments than what the Court has in other cases regarded as tolerable and thus not falling within the exceptions to Article 10 (see Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, ECHR 1999-IV, and Arslan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23462/94, 8 July 1999).

  • EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

    Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95
    I believe that such non-redress is inadequate in any court of justice and is negated by the clear wording of the Convention, as explained in detail in my partly dissenting opinion annexed to Aquilina v. Malta ([GC], no. 25642/94, ECHR 1999-III).
  • EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

    FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95
    The Court reiterates the fundamental principles underlying its judgments relating to Article 10, as set out, for example, in the Zana judgment (cited above, pp. 2547-48, § 51) and in Fressoz and Roire v. France ([GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I).
  • EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

    MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY

    The rationale for allowing little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on such expressions (see Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, §§ 38 and 41, Series A no. 103, and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV), likewise militates in favour of affording a right of access under Article 10 § 1 to such information held by public authorities.
  • EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 23922/19

    Gawlik gegen Liechtenstein - Whistleblower muss Vorwürfe vor der Anzeige …

    There is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on debate on questions of public interest (see, among other authorities, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV; and Stoll v. Switzerland [GC], no. 69698/01, § 106, ECHR 2007-V).
  • EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 27510/08

    Leugnung des Völkermords an Armeniern von Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt

    Examples include the tense climate surrounding the armed clashes between the PKK (Workers" Party of Kurdistan, an illegal armed organisation) and the Turkish security forces in south-east Turkey in the 1980s and 1990s (see Zana v. Turkey, 25 November 1997, §§ 57-60, Reports 1997-VII; Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, §§ 52 and 62, ECHR 1999-IV; and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 3) [GC], no. 24735/94, § 40, 8 July 1999), the atmosphere engendered by deadly prison riots in Turkey in December 2000 (see Falakaoglu and Saygili v. Turkey, nos. 22147/02 and 24972/03, § 33, 23 January 2007, and Saygili and Falakaoglu v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 38991/02, § 28, 17 February 2009), problems relating to the integration of non-European and especially Muslim immigrants in France (see Soulas and Others, cited above, §§ 38-39, and Le Pen v. France (dec.), no. 18788/09, 20 April 2010), and the relations with national minorities in Lithuania shortly after the re-establishment of its independence in 1990 (see Balsyte-Lideikiene v. Lithuania, no. 72596/01, § 78, 4 November 2008).
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