Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IPEK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 5-1-c Violation of Art. 5-1-c Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-5 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 17019/02
• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 17019/02, 30070/02

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 17019/02

  While promptness has to be assessed in each case according to its special features (see, among others, Aquilina v. Malta, [GC], no. 25642/94, § 48, ECHR 1999-III), the strict time constraint imposed by this requirement of Article 5 § 3 leaves little flexibility in interpretation, otherwise there would be a serious weakening of a procedural guarantee to the detriment of the individual, and the risk of impairing the very essence of the right protected by this provision (see, for example, McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 33, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 17019/02

  While promptness has to be assessed in each case according to its special features (see, among others, Aquilina v. Malta, [GC], no. 25642/94, § 48, ECHR 1999-III), the strict time constraint imposed by this requirement of Article 5 § 3 leaves little flexibility in interpretation, otherwise there would be a serious weakening of a procedural guarantee to the detriment of the individual, and the risk of impairing the very essence of the right protected by this provision (see, for example, McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 33, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 46286/99

  HACI ÖZEN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 17019/02

  As regards the first limb of the Government's objections, the Court observes that it has already examined and rejected it in similar cases (see, for example, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, §§ 66-71, ECHR 2005-IV, Ayaz and Others v. Turkey, no. 11804/02, §§ 23-24, 22 June 2006, and Hacı Özen v. Turkey, no. 46286/99, § 71, 12 April 2007).
• EGMR, 28.11.1991 - 12843/87

  KOSTER c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 17019/02

  In these circumstances, the Court finds no special difficulties or exceptional circumstances which would have prevented the authorities from bringing the applicants before a judge much sooner (see, mutatis mutandis, Kandzhov v. Bulgaria, no. 68294/01, § 66, 6 November 2008[1], Koster v. the Netherlands, 28 November 1991, § 25, Series A no. 221, and Rigopoulos v. Spain (dec.), no. 37388/97, ECHR 1999-II).

• EGMR, 22.10.2018 - 35553/12

  Urteil bestätigt Präventivhaft: EGMR lässt Polizei Spielraum im Umgang mit …

  Thus, for example, in pek and Others v. Turkey (nos. 17019/02 and 30070/02, §§ 36-37, 3 February 2009) and Kandzhov v. Bulgaria (no. 68294/01, §§ 66-67, 6 November 2008) the Court found that periods of three days and nine hours and three days and twentythree hours respectively could not be considered "prompt".
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 56425/18

  RIMSEVICS v. LATVIA

  Thus, for example, in Ipek and Others v. Turkey (nos. 17019/02 and 30070/02, §§ 36-37, 3 February 2009) and Kandzhov v. Bulgaria (no. 68294/01, §§ 66-67, 6 November 2008) the Court found that periods of three days and nine hours and three days and twenty-three hours respectively could not be considered "prompt".
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 50027/08

  PETKOV AND PROFIROV v. BULGARIA

  However, the requirement that the suspicion must be based on reasonable grounds forms an essential part of the safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention (see Ä°pek and Others v. Turkey, nos. 17019/02 and 30070/02, § 29, 3 February 2009).
• EGMR, 10.11.2016 - 70474/11

  KIRIL ZLATKOV NIKOLOV c. FRANCE

  Il renvoie aux arrêts Kandjov c. Bulgarie (no 68294/01, 6 novembre 2008 ; trois jours et vingt-trois heures), Ipek et autres c. Turquie (nos 17019/02 et 30070/02, 3 février 2009 ; trois jours et neuf heures) et Gutsanovi c. Bulgarie (no 34529/10, CEDH 2013 (extraits) ; trois jours, cinq heures et trente minutes).