Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AYDIN ÇETINKAYA v. TURKEY

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CETINKAYA v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

  While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, this being primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 94, ECHR 2006-IX; and Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 162, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84

  FUNKE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

  The Court further reiterates that although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention, there can be no doubt that the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6 (see Funke v. France, 25 February 1993, § 44, Series A no. 256-A, and John Murray v. the United Kingdom, 8 February 1996, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I).
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10

  Menschenrechtsgerichtshof verurteilt Türkei wegen Online-Zensur

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

  In view of its finding of a violation under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the use by the trial court of police statements allegedly obtained from the applicant through ill-treatment (see paragraph 108 above) and referring to paragraph 119 below, the Court deems it unnecessary to rule separately on either the admissibility or the merits of the present complaint (see Özcan Çolak cited above, § 53; Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 72, ECHR 2012; and Bayram Güçlü v. Turkey, no. 31535/04, § 27, 18 February 2014).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

  As a result, the Court considered that the applicants should be deemed to have complied with the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies (see, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 108, ECHR 2000-VII ; Suna Parlak, Rahime Aktürk et Hatice Tay v. Turkey (dec.), nos.
• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

  10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, § 220, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) [GC], no. 42219/07, § 83, 9 July 2015).
• EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

  GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

  10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, § 220, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) [GC], no. 42219/07, § 83, 9 July 2015).
• EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 35044/97

  HASAN KILIC c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

  The Court applied the same criteria in cases where the Government alleged that the applicants should have become intervening parties and lodged appeals with the Court of Cassation against acquittals of police officers on account of insufficiency of evidence of ill-treatment (see, for example, Baki Senses v Turkey (dec.), no. 24991/94, 14 November 2000; Erat and Saglam, cited above; Hasan Kiliç v. Turkey (dec.), no. 35044/97, 1 April 2003; and Uyan v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 15750/02, § 48, 21 October 2008).
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 15750/02

  UYAN c. TURQUIE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

  The Court applied the same criteria in cases where the Government alleged that the applicants should have become intervening parties and lodged appeals with the Court of Cassation against acquittals of police officers on account of insufficiency of evidence of ill-treatment (see, for example, Baki Senses v Turkey (dec.), no. 24991/94, 14 November 2000; Erat and Saglam, cited above; Hasan Kiliç v. Turkey (dec.), no. 35044/97, 1 April 2003; and Uyan v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 15750/02, § 48, 21 October 2008).
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 21790/04

  YUSUF GEZER c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

  24942/94, 24943/94 and 25125/94, 9 January 2001; Çiftçi v. Turkey (dec.), no. 39449/98, 9 May 2006); and Yusuf Gezer v. Turkey, no. 21790/04, § 27, 1 December 2009).
• EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 31535/04

  BAYRAM GÜÇLÜ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

  In view of its finding of a violation under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the use by the trial court of police statements allegedly obtained from the applicant through ill-treatment (see paragraph 108 above) and referring to paragraph 119 below, the Court deems it unnecessary to rule separately on either the admissibility or the merits of the present complaint (see Özcan Çolak cited above, § 53; Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 72, ECHR 2012; and Bayram Güçlü v. Turkey, no. 31535/04, § 27, 18 February 2014).

• EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 53567/07

  GIRISEN v. TURKEY

  The Court reiterates that within the context of Turkish law, lodging a formal complaint with the public prosecutor's office and, where appropriate, filing an objection against a decision not to prosecute, would be sufficient to fulfil the requirements of Article 35 of the Convention (see Aydin Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 84, 2 February 2016 with further references therein; and compare Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 56-57, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI).

  It further considers that the most appropriate form of redress would be a retrial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, should the applicant so request (see Aydin Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 119, 2 February 2016).

• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 13128/06

  URAZBAYEV c. RUSSIE

  Dans ces conditions, la Cour constate que, en acceptant les dépositions d'U. faites au stade de l'enquête en tant que preuves à charge, alors que les circonstances de leur obtention révélaient un risque réel et non réfuté de mauvais traitements, ainsi qu'en faisant abstraction de ses rétractions lors du procès, au seul motif que ses allégations de mauvais traitements avaient été rejetées comme mal fondées par les procureurs dans le cadre de leurs vérifications, la cour régionale a privé d'équité le procès du requérant (Huseyn et autres, précité, § 212, Örs et autres, précité, § 61, Özcan Çolak c. Turquie, no 30235/03, § 49, 6 octobre 2009, Aydin Cetinkaya c. Turquie, no 2082/05, § 107, 2 février 2016, et Mehmet Duman, précité, § 46).
• EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 7851/05

  CANSAD AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  It further considers that the most appropriate form of redress would be a retrial of the applicants in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, should they so request (see Aydin Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 119, 2 February 2016).

 
• EGMR, 13.06.2023 - 60237/11

  TUNCER AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE

  Moreover, the absence of an admissible Article 3 complaint does not, in principle, preclude the Court from taking into consideration an applicant's allegations that police statements had been obtained using methods of coercion or oppression and that their admission to the case file, relied upon by the trial court, therefore constituted a violation of the fair-trial guarantee of Article 6 (see Aydin Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 104, 2 February 2016, and Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, § 42, 23 October 2018).
• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 78510/11

  OKUYUCU v. TURKEY

  Moreover, the absence of an admissible Article 3 complaint does not, in principle, preclude the Court from taking into consideration the applicant's allegations that the police statements had been obtained using methods of coercion or oppression and that their admission to the case file, relied upon by the trial court, therefore constituted a violation of the fair trial guarantee of Article 6 (see Kolu v. Turkey, no. 35811/97, § 54, 2 August 2005; Örs and Others v. Turkey, no. 46213/99, § 60, 20 June 2006; Özcan Çolak v. Turkey, no. 30235/03, § 43, 6 October 2009; Aydin Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 104, 2 February 2016; and Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, § 42, 23 October 2018).
• EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 63566/12

  AKBAS c. TURQUIE

  Cependant, la Cour a également précisé que lorsque l'issue de la procédure pénale concernait une requalification des faits, par exemple en mauvais traitements alors que l'accusation était de la torture, un requérant était dans l'obligation d'introduire un recours en cassation (Aydin Çetinkaya c. Turquie, no 2082/05, §§ 84-94, 2 février 2016).
• EGMR, 09.07.2019 - 38176/08

  GÜLKANAT c. TURQUIE

  La Cour, maîtresse de la qualification des faits, estime donc, qu'il convient d'examiner les griefs du requérant sous le seul angle de l'article 3 de la Convention (Ibrahim Demirta?Ÿ c. Turquie, no 25018/10, §§ 19-20, 28 octobre 2014, Aydin Çetinkaya c. Turquie, no 2082/05, §§ 73 et 92, 2 février 2016, et A.K. c. Turquie, no 27607/11, §§ 28-29, 9 octobre 2018), ainsi libellé:.
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 1399/07

  MEHMET ALI ESER v. TURKEY

  The Court further reiterates that the absence of an admissible Article 3 complaint does not, in principle, preclude it from taking into consideration the applicant's allegations that the statements made before the police had been obtained using methods of coercion or oppression and that their admission to the case file, relied upon by the trial court, therefore constituted a violation of the fair trial guarantee of Article 6 (see Aydin Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 104, 2 February 2016).
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 46661/09

  BOZKAYA v. TURKEY

  It further considers that the most appropriate form of redress would be the retrial of the applicant in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, should he so request (see Aydin Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 119, 2 February 2016).