Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 51839/99 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,61756) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GÖKÇE AND DEMIREL v. TURKEY
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-1 (length) Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial awards Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 51839/99
- EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 51839/99
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94
PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 51839/99
The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 51839/99
The Court must then establish whether the other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continue to justify the deprivation of liberty (see, among other authorities, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 77, 26 July 2001, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95
FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 51839/99
The Court further reiterates that it is sufficient that the complaints intended to be made subsequently before it should have been raised, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements before the national authorities (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I).
- EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 51839/99
Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, as in the present case, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 32, and Avsar, cited above, § 283). - EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92
DIKME c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 51839/99
The Court is consequently not in a position to make an overall examination of the proceedings against the applicants and considers that it cannot speculate either on what the national courts will decide or on what the outcome of a second appeal on points of law might be since that remedy would still be available to the applicants if they were to consider that their trial had ultimately infringed the rights on which they relied before the Court (see Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, § 111, ECHR 2000-VIII). - EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94
AVSAR c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 51839/99
The Court recalls at the outset that, in assessing evidence in a claim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, it adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (see Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII). - EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 51839/99
However, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention (see, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52). - EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86
LETELLIER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 51839/99
However, it recalls that the danger of absconding cannot solely be assessed on the basis of the severity of the sentence risked, but must be analysed with reference to a number of other relevant additional elements, which may either confirm the existence of such a danger or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify detention pending trial (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 43). - EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96
ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 51839/99
The Court must then establish whether the other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continue to justify the deprivation of liberty (see, among other authorities, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 77, 26 July 2001, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2000-IV).
- EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 45902/99
KASA v. TURKEY
As regards the first limb of the Government's submissions, the Court reiterates that it is sufficient that the complaints intended to be made subsequently before it should have been raised, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements before the national authorities (see Gökçe and Demirel v. Turkey, no. 51839/99, § 63, 22 June 2006, and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I). - EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 68061/12
EROL ET AUTRES c. TÜRKIYE
Les requérants ne soulevant pas de grief défendable sous l'angle de l'article 11 de la Convention, leur grief tiré de l'article 13 de la Convention est lui aussi manifestement mal fondé (comparer Gökçe et Demirel c. Turquie, no 51839/99, §§ 69-71, 22 juin 2006) et doit être déclaré irrecevable en application de l'article 35 §§ 3 a) et 4 de la Convention. - EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 22781/10
BALACCI c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
Il s'ensuit que cette partie de la requête doit être rejetée comme manifestement mal fondé (comparer Gökçe et Demirel c. Turquie, no 51839/99, §§ 69-71, 22 juin 2006), en application de l'article 35 §§ 3 a) et 4 de la Convention.