Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOSTI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 No violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.08.2005 - 74321/01
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

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

• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

  The Court reiterates that it is not for the Convention bodies to cure of their own motion any shortcomings or lack of precision in the respondent Government's arguments (see, in particular, Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, p. 77, § 35).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

  Although, in general, the expression "the state of evidence" may be a relevant factor for the existence and persistence of serious indications of guilt, in the present case it nevertheless, alone, cannot justify a length of preventive detention of over two years and three months, in particular, having regard to the young age of the applicants (see, in particular, Selçuk v. Turkey, no. 21768/02, §§ 34-36, 10 January 2006, Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, Mansur v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-B, § 55).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

  Although, in general, the expression "the state of evidence" may be a relevant factor for the existence and persistence of serious indications of guilt, in the present case it nevertheless, alone, cannot justify a length of preventive detention of over two years and three months, in particular, having regard to the young age of the applicants (see, in particular, Selçuk v. Turkey, no. 21768/02, §§ 34-36, 10 January 2006, Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, Mansur v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-B, § 55).

 
• EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 11798/03

  TUTAR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

  The Court has examined several cases against Turkey in which it has found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention based on the fact that, inter alia, the State Security Courts used the same formal reasons for the applicants' continued detention without explaining their specific relevance in each case (see, for example, Hasan Ceylan v. Turkey, no. 58398/00, 23 May 2006, Pakkan v. Turkey, no. 13017/02, 31 October 2006, Gıyasettin Altun v. Turkey, no. 73038/01, 24 May 2005, Tutar v. Turkey, no. 11798/03, 10 October 2006, Mehmet Günes v. Turkey, no. 61908/00, 21 September 2006, Acunbay, cited above, and Tamer and Others, cited above).
• EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 13017/02

  PAKKAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

  The Court has examined several cases against Turkey in which it has found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention based on the fact that, inter alia, the State Security Courts used the same formal reasons for the applicants' continued detention without explaining their specific relevance in each case (see, for example, Hasan Ceylan v. Turkey, no. 58398/00, 23 May 2006, Pakkan v. Turkey, no. 13017/02, 31 October 2006, Gıyasettin Altun v. Turkey, no. 73038/01, 24 May 2005, Tutar v. Turkey, no. 11798/03, 10 October 2006, Mehmet Günes v. Turkey, no. 61908/00, 21 September 2006, Acunbay, cited above, and Tamer and Others, cited above).
• EGMR, 23.05.2006 - 58398/00

  HASAN CEYLAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

  The Court has examined several cases against Turkey in which it has found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention based on the fact that, inter alia, the State Security Courts used the same formal reasons for the applicants' continued detention without explaining their specific relevance in each case (see, for example, Hasan Ceylan v. Turkey, no. 58398/00, 23 May 2006, Pakkan v. Turkey, no. 13017/02, 31 October 2006, Gıyasettin Altun v. Turkey, no. 73038/01, 24 May 2005, Tutar v. Turkey, no. 11798/03, 10 October 2006, Mehmet Günes v. Turkey, no. 61908/00, 21 September 2006, Acunbay, cited above, and Tamer and Others, cited above).
• EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 73038/01

  ALTIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

  The Court has examined several cases against Turkey in which it has found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention based on the fact that, inter alia, the State Security Courts used the same formal reasons for the applicants' continued detention without explaining their specific relevance in each case (see, for example, Hasan Ceylan v. Turkey, no. 58398/00, 23 May 2006, Pakkan v. Turkey, no. 13017/02, 31 October 2006, Gıyasettin Altun v. Turkey, no. 73038/01, 24 May 2005, Tutar v. Turkey, no. 11798/03, 10 October 2006, Mehmet Günes v. Turkey, no. 61908/00, 21 September 2006, Acunbay, cited above, and Tamer and Others, cited above).

• EGMR, 06.05.2008 - 20817/04

  NART v. TURKEY

  It concluded that Article 298 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be considered as an effective remedy and found a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kosti and Others v. Turkey, no. 74321/01, §§ 21-25, 3 May 2007; Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, §§ 71-72, ECHR 2005-IV).