Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DESDE v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-c (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 23909/03

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 23909/03

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human rights requires that these provisions be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 390, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

  Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 23909/03

  Referring to the Court's judgment in the case of Conka v. Belgium (no. 51564/99, § 75, ECHR 2002-I), the Government claimed that the effectiveness of a "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention did not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome.

 
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 32347/02

  MEHMET EREN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 23909/03

  Further, every detained person should be examined on his or her own and the results of that examination, as well as relevant statements by the detainee and the doctor's conclusions, should be formally recorded by the doctor (see Akkoç v. Turkey, nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, § 118, ECHR 2000-X; Mehmet Eren v. Turkey, no. 32347/02, § 40, 14 October 2008).
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 7377/03

  DAYANAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 23909/03

  Neither the assistance provided subsequently by a lawyer nor the adversarial nature of the ensuing proceedings could remedy the defects which had occurred during the applicant's custody (see Salduz, cited above, § 58; Amutgan v. Turkey, no. 5138/04, § 18, 3 February 2009, and Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, § 33, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 23909/03

  Failing this, a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Çolak and Filizer v. Turkey, nos. 32578/96 and 32579/96, § 30, 8 January 2004; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 61, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; and Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 23909/03

  While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140).

• EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 25703/11

  DVORSKI v. CROATIA

  On ne peut donc pas dire que la juridiction de jugement n'ait tenu aucun compte des exceptions d'inadmissibilité à titre de preuve de la déposition que le requérant avait soulevées (voir, par contraste, Desde c. Turquie, no 23909/03, § 130, 1er février 2011).