Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=18.12.2012&Aktenzeichen=3111/10
Timestamp: 2019-07-17 11:51:54+00:00
Document Index: 54251493

Matched Legal Cases: ["l'article 10", '§ 64', '§ 47', '§ 47', '§ 138', '§ 55', '§ 72', '§ 41', '§ 210', '§ 31', '§ 48', '§ 27', 'arrêt ', '§ 15', 'arrêt ', 'arrêt ', '§ 133', '§ 48', '§ 48', '§ 44', '§ 57', '§ 50', '§ 6', '§ 67', '§ 57', '§ 59', '§ 230', '§ 47', '§ 18', '§ 7', '§ 67', '§ 70', '§ 7', '§ 67', '§ 70', '§ 50']

EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2012,39591
EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,39591)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.12.2012 - 3111/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,39591)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Dezember 2012 - 3111/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,39591)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,39591) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Violation de l'article 10 - Liberté d'expression-Générale (Article 10-1 - Liberté d'expression Liberté de communiquer des informations Liberté de recevoir des informations) Préjudice moral - réparation (französisch)
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression Freedom to impart information Freedom to receive information) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
Türkei wegen Online-Zensur verurteilt
Urteil gegen Türkei wegen Online-Zensur
Beschränkung des Internetzugangs als Verletzung des Art 10 EMRK
Eu égard toutefois aux faits de l'espèce, aux thèses des parties et aux conclusions formulées sous l'angle des articles 2 et 13 de la Convention, la Cour estime qu'elle a examiné les principales questions juridiques soulevées par la présente requête et qu'il n'y a pas lieu de statuer séparément sur les autres griefs (voir, parmi d'autres, Kamil Uzun c. Turquie, no 37410/97, § 64, 10 mai 2007, The Arges College of Legal Advisers, précité, § 47, Women On Waves et autres c. Portugal, no 31276/05, § 47, 3 février 2009, Velcea et Mazare c. Roumanie, no 64301/01, § 138, 1er décembre 2009, Villa c. Italie, no 19675/06, § 55, 20 avril 2010, Ahmet YÄ±ldÄ±rÄ±m c. Turquie, no 3111/10, § 72, CEDH 2012, et Mehmet Hatip Dicle c. Turquie, no 9858/04, § 41, 15 octobre 2013 ; voir aussi Varnava et autres, précité, §§ 210-211).
48âEUR' Vgl. zu dem möglichen Kollateralschaden einer Sperrmaßnahme EGMR, Urteil Yildirim gegen Türkei vom 18. Dezember 2012, Beschwerde Nr. 3111/10.
62âEUR' EGMR, Urteil Yildirim gegen Türkei vom 18. Dezember 2012, Beschwerde Nr. 3111/10, § 31.
63âEUR' EGMR, Urteil Yildirim gegen Türkei vom 18. Dezember 2012, Beschwerde Nr. 3111/10, § 48; EGMR, Urteil Times Newspapers Ltd. gegen das Vereinigte Königreich vom 10. März 2009, Beschwerde Nr. 3002/03 und 23676/03, § 27.
Pour un exposé du droit et de la pratique internes et internationaux en vigueur à l'époque des faits, la Cour renvoie à son arrêt Ahmet Yildirim c. Turquie (no 3111/10, §§ 15-37, CEDH 2012).
Disant se référer à l'arrêt Ahmet Yildirim c. Turquie (no 3111/10, CEDH 2012) ainsi qu'à deux arrêts de la Cour constitutionnelle (paragraphes 25-26 ci-dessus), ils affirment également que la loi no 5651 n'autorisait pas le blocage général de l'accès à un site internet.
Par ailleurs, dans l'affaire Ahmet Yildirim c. Turquie (arrêt no 3111/10, CEDH 2012), le tribunal avait ordonné de bloquer totalement l'accès à Google Sites à la suite d'une demande de la PTI.
In this connection, the Court reiterates that in the light of its accessibility and its capacity to store and communicate vast amounts of information, the Internet plays an important role in enhancing the public's access to news and facilitating the dissemination of information in general (see Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 133, ECHR 2015; Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 48, ECHR 2012; and Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), nos.
Moreover, the Court has previously held that in the light of its accessibility and its capacity to store and communicate vast amounts of information, the Internet plays an important role in enhancing the public's access to news and facilitating the dissemination of information in general (see Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 48, ECHR 2012; Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), nos.
In addition, the legal norms should be compatible with the rule of law (see, for example, Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 44, ECHR 2001-VIII; Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 57, ECHR 2012; and Cumhuriyet Vakfi and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, § 50, 8 October 2013).
In the light of the aforementioned considerations, the Court concludes that Article 220 § 6 of the Criminal Code was not "foreseeable" in its application since it did not afford the applicant the legal protection against arbitrary interference with his right under Article 11 of the Convention (see Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 67, ECHR 2012).
41340/98 and 3 others, § 57, ECHR 2003-II; Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 59, ECHR 2012 (cited in paragraph 70 of the present judgment); and Roman Zakharov, cited above, § 230).
In my view, refusal to grant access to the Internet, thus rendering access to specific information either impossible or more difficult, will in general amount to an interference with the right to receive information (see Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, §§ 47-56, ECHR 2012; Akdeniz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 20877/10, §§ 18-29, 11 March 2014; and Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, nos.
In the light of the aforementioned considerations, the Court concludes that Article 220 § 7 of the Criminal Code was not "foreseeable" in its application, since it did not afford the applicants the legal protection against arbitrary interference with their rights under Article 11 of the Convention (see Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 67, ECHR 2012, and Isikirik, cited above, § 70).
In the light of the aforementioned considerations, the Court concludes that Article 220 § 7 of the Criminal Code was not "foreseeable" in its application since it did not afford the applicant the legal protection against arbitrary interference with his right under Article 11 of the Convention (see Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 67, ECHR 2012, and Isikirik, cited above, § 70).
It applies not only to the content of information but also to the means of dissemination, since any restriction imposed on the latter necessarily interferes with the right to receive and impart information (see Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 50, ECHR 2012).
EGMR - 10795/14 (anhängig)
EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 65324/09
IALAMOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 51099/10
GRECU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 15066/05
ASLAN ET SEZEN c. TURQUIE (N° 2)
EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 32738/11
KILICI c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 43217/04
ASLAN ET SEZEN c. TURQUIE