Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EVCIMEN v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 31792/06

  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 applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 31792/06

  According to the case-law, the latter are best placed to assess the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, amongst many authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 235-B, and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 31792/06

  According to the case-law, the latter are best placed to assess the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, amongst many authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 235-B, and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B).

• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 21086/04

  DANESHPAYEH c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 31792/06

  The Court has examined similar cases on previous applications and has found violations of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the lack of an effective remedy under Turkish law whereby the applicant could have contested the length of the proceedings at issue (see, most recently, Daneshpayeh v. Turkey, no. 21086/04, §§ 35-38, 16 July 2009).
• EGMR, 08.08.2006 - 58922/00

  MUSTAFA TÜRKOGLU v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 31792/06

  While the Court notes that it was the applicant himself who had requested the adjournment, it nevertheless bears in mind that it is the role of the domestic courts to manage their proceedings so that they are expeditious and effective (see, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-II; Tibbling v. Sweden, no. 59129/00, § 32, 11 October 2005; Mustafa TürkoÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 58922/00, § 40, 8 August 2006 and Zöhre Akyol v. Turkey, no. 28668/03, § 33, 4 November 2008).
• EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 59129/00

  TIBBLING v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 31792/06

  While the Court notes that it was the applicant himself who had requested the adjournment, it nevertheless bears in mind that it is the role of the domestic courts to manage their proceedings so that they are expeditious and effective (see, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-II; Tibbling v. Sweden, no. 59129/00, § 32, 11 October 2005; Mustafa TürkoÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 58922/00, § 40, 8 August 2006 and Zöhre Akyol v. Turkey, no. 28668/03, § 33, 4 November 2008).
• EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 28668/03

  ZÖHRE AKYOL v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 31792/06

  While the Court notes that it was the applicant himself who had requested the adjournment, it nevertheless bears in mind that it is the role of the domestic courts to manage their proceedings so that they are expeditious and effective (see, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-II; Tibbling v. Sweden, no. 59129/00, § 32, 11 October 2005; Mustafa TürkoÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 58922/00, § 40, 8 August 2006 and Zöhre Akyol v. Turkey, no. 28668/03, § 33, 4 November 2008).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 26964/09

  KIRANEL v. TURKEY

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see, for example, Sebahattin Evcimen v. Turkey, no. 31792/06, §§ 28-34, 23 February 2010).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 6332/08

  SAGLAM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Daneshpayeh v. Turkey, no. 21086/04, §§ 26-38, 16 July 2009; Sebahattin Evcimen v. Turkey, no. 31792/06, § 33, 23 February 2010; Hasko v. Turkey, no. 20578/05, § 30, 17 January 2012; and Can and Gümüs v. Turkey, nos. 16777/06 and 2090/07, § 19, 31 March 2009).