Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SARLI v. TURKEY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion) No violation of Art. 5 Violation of Art. 13 Failure to comply with obligations under former Art. 25 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 28.11.1995 - 24490/94
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 24490/94

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 16757/90

  STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 24490/94

  The Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair" (see, among other authorities, the Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 33; the Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, § 34; likewise the Luca v. Italy judgment of 21 February 2001; the Saidi v. France judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, § 43; and the Stanford v. the United Kingdom judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 282-A, § 24).

• EGMR, 18.05.2000 - 41488/98

  VELIKOVA c. BULGARIE

  A également été jugée pertinente dans ce contexte l'appréciation générale de l'ensemble des preuves et, en particulier, de la question de savoir si le requérant avait un intérêt à poursuivre l'affaire (arrêt Ergi précité, pp. 1770-1771, §§ 63-64 ; Kurt c. Turquie, requête no 24276/94, décision de la Commission du 22 mai 1995, Décisions et rapports 81-A, p. 112 ; Sarli c. Turquie, requête no 24490/94, rapport de la Commission du 21 octobre 1999, § 107, non publié ; Aslan c. Turquie, requêtes nos 22491/93 et 22497/93, rapport de la Commission du 22 mai 1997, non publié).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05

  BOICENCO v. MOLDOVA

  The undertaking not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application precludes any interference with the individual's right to present and pursue his complaint before the Court effectively (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1219, § 105; Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, p. 1192, § 159; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV; Sarli v. Turkey, no. 24490/94, §§ 85-86, 22 May 2001; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002).
• EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 20602/05

  GERASHCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  The Court also underlines that the undertaking not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application precludes any interference with the individual's right to present and pursue his complaint before the Court effectively (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 105, Reports 1996-IV; Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 159, Reports 1998-III; Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV; Sarlı v. Turkey, no. 24490/94, §§ 85-86, 22 May 2001; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002).

 
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 32362/02

  VISLOGUZOV v. UKRAINE

  The Court also underlines that the undertaking not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application precludes any interference with the individual's right to present and pursue his complaint before the Court effectively (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, § 105; Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, § 159; Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV; Sarlı v. Turkey, no. 24490/94, §§ 85-86, 22 May 2001; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002).
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 51243/08

  PUZAN v. UKRAINE

  The Court also underlines that the undertaking not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application precludes any interference with the individual's right to present and pursue his complaint before the Court effectively (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, § 105; Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, § 159; Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV; Sarlı v. Turkey, no. 24490/94, §§ 85-86, 22 May 2001; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002).
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 38779/04

  FELDMAN v. UKRAINE

  The Court also underlines that the undertaking not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application precludes any interference with the individual's right to present and pursue his complaint before the Court effectively (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, § 105; Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, § 159; Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV; Sarlı v. Turkey, no. 24490/94, §§ 85-86, 22 May 2001; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002).
• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 2295/06

  CHAYKOVSKIY v. UKRAINE

  The Court also underlines that the undertaking not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application precludes any interference with the individual's right to present and pursue his complaint before the Court effectively (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, § 105; Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, § 159; Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV; Sarlı v. Turkey, no. 24490/94, §§ 85-86, 22 May 2001; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002).
• EGMR, 09.02.2010 - 27700/08

  HOLLAND v. SWEDEN

  The undertaking not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application precludes any interference with the individual's right to present and pursue his complaint before the Court effectively (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1219, § 105; Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, p. 1192, § 159; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV; Sarli v. Turkey, no. 24490/94, §§ 85-86, 22 May 2001; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002).
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 65735/01

  YAKURIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court also recalls that the undertaking not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application precludes any interference with the individual's right to present and pursue his complaint before the Court effectively (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 105, Reports 1996-IV; Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 159, Reports 1998-III; Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV; Sarli v. Turkey, no. 24490/94, §§ 85-86, 22 May 2001; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002).
• EGMR, 07.10.2004 - 60776/00

  POLESHCHUK v. RUSSIA

  The Court also recalls that the undertaking not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application precludes any interference with the individual's right to present and pursue his complaint before the Court effectively (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1219, § 105; Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, p. 1192, § 159; Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV; Sarli v. Turkey, no. 24490/94, §§ 85-86, 22 May 2001; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002).