|EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 74507/01|
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MAHMUT ASLAN v. TURKEY
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
Preliminary objections dismissed (victim non-exhaustion of domestic remedies six-month period) Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award (englisch)
- EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 74507/01
- EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 74507/01
- EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 8747/02
GECGEL AND CELIK v. TURKEYThe Court reiterates that it has already examined and rejected this preliminary objection by the Government's in cases similar to the present application (see, E.K. v. Turkey (dec.), no. 28496/95, 28 November 2000 as regards the first objection, and Mahmut Aslan v. Turkey, no. 74507/01, § 15, 2 October 2007 as regards the second).
- EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 287/03
CENGELLI AND ERYILMAZ v. TURKEYIn the circumstances of the case and particularly taking into account the overall length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, the Court does not find it unreasonable that he waited for the official notification of the judgment and did not inquire earlier about the developments in his case (see Mahmut Aslan v. Turkey, no. 74507/01, § 17, 2 October 2007).
- EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 13467/05
SINGAR v. TURKEYAs to the Government's first two objections, the Court reiterates that it has already examined and rejected similar objections by the Government in previous cases (see, in particular, Mahmut Aslan v. Turkey, no. 74507/01, § 14, 2 October 2007, in respect of the first objection, and Tutar v. Turkey, no. 11798/03, §§ 12-14, 10 October 2006, and Ertürk v. Turkey, no. 15259/02, §§ 21-22, 12 April 2005, in respect of the second objection).
- EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 6973/03
GOZEN v. TURKEYFinally, the Court finds that as the applicant, who was charged under Article 168 § 1 of the former Criminal Code with membership of an illegal terrorist organisation and who thereby risked a very heavy sentence, allowed over four years to pass before finally attempting to inform himself of the status of the criminal proceedings against him, he cannot be considered to have followed the domestic proceedings with due diligence in order to keep himself informed of the date on which the judgment was rendered (see Elal and Others, cited above and, by contrast, Mahmut Aslan v. Turkey, no. 74507/01, § 17, 2 October 2007).
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.