Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ÖMER GÜNER v. TURKEY

  Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GÜNER v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 50541/08

  IBRAHIM ET AUTRES CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 28338/07

  On 17 February 2017 the Vice-President of the Second Section invited the Government to submit further observations, if they so wished, following the judgment in Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016).

  The Court does not consider it necessary to examine whether the systematic nature of the restriction on the applicant's right of access to a lawyer was, in itself, sufficient to find a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, as, in any event, the Government have not offered any compelling reasons for the restriction or demonstrated that the absence of legal assistance at the initial stage of the investigation did not irretrievably prejudice the applicant's defence rights (ibid., § 58, and see Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 274, ECHR 2016).

• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 38907/09

  BAYRAM KOÇ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 28338/07

  Likewise, the Court of Cassation dealt with this issue in a formalistic manner and failed to remedy this shortcoming (see Bayram Koç v. Turkey, no. 38907/09, § 23, 5 September 2017).

• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 3324/19

  MEHMET ZEKI DOGAN v. TÜRKIYE (No. 2)

  (see Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, § 38, 4 September 2018).
• EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 27582/07

  MEHMET ZEKI ÇELEBI v. TURKEY

  The Court has already examined the same legal problem and found violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in cases against Turkey both before and after the above-mentioned Ibrahim and Others judgment (for the Court's approach prior to the Ibrahim and Others judgment, see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; Irmak v. Turkey, no. 20564/10, 12 January 2016; Galip Dogru v. Turkey, no. 36001/06, 28 April 2015; Eraslan and Others v. Turkey, no. 59653/00, 6 October 2009; Halil Kaya, cited above; Ditaban v. Turkey, no. 69006/01, 14 April 2009; and Ibrahim Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 16500/04, 17 February 2009; and for the Court's approach following the Ibrahim and Others judgment, see Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, 23 October 2018; Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; Can??ad and Others v. Turkey, no. 7851/05, 13 March 2018; Giri??en v. Turkey, no. 53567/07, 13 March 2018; Izzet Çelik v. Turkey, no. 15185/05, 23 January 2018; and Bayram Koç v. Turkey, no. 38907/09, 5 September 2017).
• EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 59453/10

  SÜLEYMAN v. TURKEY

  Under these circumstances, the Court is not convinced that the Government have been able to show with sufficient clarity that applications to the same effect would have had any different outcome given the trial court's stance on that matter (see, mutatis mutandis, Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, § 39, 4 September 2018, and compare A.M. v. Italy, no. 37019/97, § 27, ECHR 1999-IX).

 
• EGMR, 24.05.2022 - 74536/10

  SINAN ÇETINKAYA AND AGYAR ÇETINKAYA v. TURKEY

  On that basis, the Court dismisses the first limb of the Government's preliminary objection (see Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria, 25 February 1992, § 42, Series A no. 227, and Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, § 39, 4 September 2018).
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 74345/11

  SARAR v. TURKEY

  The Court has already examined the same legal problem and found violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in cases against Turkey both before and after the above-mentioned judgment in Ibrahim and Others (for the Court's approach prior to the Ibrahim and Others judgment, see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; Irmak v. Turkey, no. 20564/10, 12 January 2016; Galip Dogru v. Turkey, no. 36001/06, 28 April 2015; Eraslan and Others v. Turkey, no. 59653/00, 6 October 2009; Halil Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22922/03, 22 September 2009; Ditaban v. Turkey, no. 69006/01, 14 April 2009; and Ibrahim Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 16500/04, 17 February 2009; and for the Court's approach following the judgment in Ibrahim and Others, see Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, 23 October 2018; Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; Can?Ÿad and Others v. Turkey, no. 7851/05, 13 March 2018; Giri?Ÿen v. Turkey, no. 53567/07, 13 March 2018; Izzet Çelik v. Turkey, no. 15185/05, 23 January 2018; and Bayram Koç v. Turkey, no. 38907/09, 5 September 2017).
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 35935/10

  KORKMAZ v. TURKEY

  The Court has already examined the same legal problem and found violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in cases against Turkey both before and after the above-mentioned Ibrahim and Others judgment (for the Court's approach prior to the Ibrahim and Others judgment, see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; no. 20564/10, 12 January 2016; Galip Dogru v. Turkey, no. 36001/06, 28 April 2015; Eraslan and Others v. Turkey, no. 59653/00, 6 October 2009; Halil Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22922/03, 22 September 2009; Ditaban v. Turkey, no. 69006/01, 14 April 2009; and Ibrahim Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 16500/04, 17 February 2009; and for the Court's approach following the Ibrahim and Others judgment, see Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, 23 October 2018; Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; Cansad and Others v. Turkey, no. 7851/05, 13 March 2018; Girisen v. Turkey, no. 53567/07, 13 March 2018; Izzet Çelik v. Turkey, no. 15185/05, 23 January 2018; and Bayram Koç v. Turkey, no. 38907/09, 5 September 2017).
• EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 20458/17

  ERIS v. TURKEY

  The Court has already examined the same legal problem and found violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in cases against Turkey both before and after the above-mentioned Ibrahim and Others judgment (for the Court's approach prior to the Ibrahim and Others judgment, see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; no. 20564/10, 12 January 2016; Galip Dogru v. Turkey, no. 36001/06, 28 April 2015; Eraslan and Others v. Turkey, no. 59653/00, 6 October 2009; Halil Kaya, cited above; Ditaban v. Turkey, no. 69006/01, 14 April 2009; and Ibrahim Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 16500/04, 17 February 2009; and for the Court's approach following the Ibrahim and Others judgment, see Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, 23 October 2018; Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; Can?Ÿad and Others v. Turkey, no. 7851/05, 13 March 2018; Giri?Ÿen v. Turkey, no. 53567/07, 13 March 2018; Izzet Çelik v. Turkey, no. 15185/05, 23 January 2018; Bayram Koç v. Turkey, no. 38907/09, 5 September 2017; and Mehmet Zeki Çelebi, cited above).
• EGMR, 02.04.2019 - 6337/10

  EROGLU AND AKDEMIR v. TURKEY

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning the complaints that had been communicated to the Government in the present case (see, in respect of the systemic denial of access to a lawyer and the use of evidence obtained in the absence of a lawyer to convict an applicant, Beuze v. Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, 9 November 2018; Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, 23 October 2018; Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; Giri??en v. Turkey, no. 53567/07, 13 March 2018; Can??ad and Others v. Turkey, no. 7851/05, 13 March 2018; Izzet Çelik v. Turkey, no. 15185/05, 23 January 2018; and Bayram Koç v. Turkey, no. 38907/09, 5 September 2017; see, in respect of failure to inform an individual of his rights prior to investigative actions and the use by the trial court of evidence obtained therefrom, Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.