Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=23556/94
Timestamp: 2019-12-06 18:24:35
Document Index: 84103234

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 14', 'art. 10', 'art. 14', '§ 2', '§ 58', '§ 34', '§ 102', 'application no. 23168', '§ 2', '§ 25', '§ 41', '§ 47', '§ 37', '§ 69', '§ 41', '§ 63', '§ 50', '§ 61', '§ 95', '§ 37', '§ 69', '§ 41', '§ 63', '§ 37', '§ 37', '§ 69', '§ 41', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 14']

Rechtsprechung: 23556/94 - dejure.org
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EKMR, 15.04.1996
https://dejure.org/1999,26438
EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94 (https://dejure.org/1999,26438)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08.07.1999 - 23556/94 (https://dejure.org/1999,26438)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08. Juli 1999 - 23556/94 (https://dejure.org/1999,26438)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1999,26438) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 9, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Art. 14+10, Art. 14 MRK
Violation of Art. 10 Not necessary to examine Art. 14+10 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)
Violation de l'art. 10 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 14+10 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)
EKMR, 15.04.1996 - 23556/94
Another principle that has been consistently emphasised in the Court's case-law is that there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political expression or on debate on questions of public interest (see, among many other authorities, Wingrove v. the United Kingdom, 25 November 1996, § 58, Reports 1996-V; Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-IV; and Animal Defenders International, cited above, § 102).
The Court considers, however, that the claims are excessive, regard being had to its case-law (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, ' 70, ECHR 2000- , Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, ' 50, ECHR 1999- and the following judgments cited above: Kokkinakis v. Greece, ' 59, Serif v. Greece, ' 61, Larissis and Others v. Greece, ' 74).
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).
On 11 December 1998 the President of the Court, Mr L. Wildhaber, decided that, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, the instant case should be referred to the Grand Chamber that had been constituted to hear thirteen 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. 1) (no. 26682/95); 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).
In short, the Court, like the Commission, accepts that the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression, being the result of his conviction under Article 312 § 2 of the Criminal Code, may be considered to have been prescribed by law (see, mutatis mutandis, the following judgments: Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 25, ECHR 1999-IV; Incal v. Turkey of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, pp. 1564-65, § 41; and Zana v. Turkey of 25 November 1997, Reports 1997-VII, p. 2546, § 47).
The nature and severity of the penalties imposed are factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 (see Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-IV; Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, § 69, ECHR 2001-I; Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, §§ 41-42, 27 May 2003; and Lesník, cited above, §§ 63-64).
Having regard to other awards made in cases against Turkey (see, for example, Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 50, ECHR 1999-IV, and Arslan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23462/94, § 61, 8 July 1999, unreported) and ruling on an equitable basis, it awards the applicants GBP 5, 000 each.
De plus, l'équité de la procédure et les garanties qu'elle offre (voir, mutatis mutandis, Steel et Morris c. Royaume-Uni, no 68416/01, § 95, CEDH 2005-II), et la nature et la lourdeur des peines infligées (Ceylan c. Turquie [GC], no 23556/94, § 37, CEDH 1999-IV, Tammer c. Estonie, no 41205/98, § 69, CEDH 2001-I, Skalka, arrêt précité, §§ 41-42, et Lesník c. Slovaquie, no 35640/97, §§ 63-64, CEDH 2003-IV) sont aussi des éléments à prendre en considération lorsqu'il s'agit de mesurer la proportionnalité de l'atteinte portée à la liberté d'expression garantie par l'article 10 de la Convention.
Elle souligne que la nature et la lourdeur des peines infligées sont aussi des éléments à prendre en considération lorsqu'il s'agit de mesurer la proportionnalité de l'ingérence (voir, par exemple, l'arrêt Ceylan c. Turquie [GC], no 23556/94, § 37, CEDH 1999-IV).
Finally, an important factor to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with freedom of expression is the nature and severity of the penalties imposed (see Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-IV; Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, § 69, ECHR 2001-I; and Skaÿka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, §§ 41-42, 27 May 2003).
EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 5380/07
KARSAI c. HONGRIE
EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 17129/02
ISAK TEPE c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 65849/01
EGMR, 26.04.2005 - 77365/01
FALAKAOGLU c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 12188/06
EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 47098/11
BAYAR c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 75484/12
ÇOLAK ET KASIMOGULLARI c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 71164/11
EGMR, 19.06.2003 - 49283/99
https://dejure.org/1996,26990
EKMR, 15.04.1996 - 23556/94 (https://dejure.org/1996,26990)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 15.04.1996 - 23556/94 (https://dejure.org/1996,26990)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 15. April 1996 - 23556/94 (https://dejure.org/1996,26990)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1996,26990) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK