Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IBRAHIM ET AUTRES CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI

  Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IBRAHIM AND OTHERS AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 50541/08
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 50541/08
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 50541/08
• EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08, 40351/09

Wird zitiert von ... (29)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• KAG Freiburg, 02.08.2010 - 13/09

  Wahlanfechtung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 50541/08

  13/09/2016.

• EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 15269/13

  RUSISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  The relevant general principles concerning access to a lawyer and, more specifically, representation by a lawyer of one's choosing have been summarised by the Court in the case of Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, §§ 255-74, 13 September 2016) and Dvorski v. Croatia ([GC], no. 25703/11, § 76-82, ECHR 2015) respectively (for a more recent reference see also Simeonovi v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 21980/04, §§ 112-20, 12 May 2017, and Beuze v. Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, §§ 114-50, 9 November 2018).

  Complaints under Article 6 about the investigation stage tend to crystallise at the trial itself when the prosecution seeks to rely on evidence obtained during the pre-trial proceedings - the phase in which the restrictions on Article 6 rights applied - and the defence seeks its exclusion (see Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 et 3 others, § 254, 13 September 2016 and Beuze, cited above, § 173).

  50541/08 and 3 others, § 255, 13 September 2016), and the rights under the Convention have to be ensured in such a way that they are not "theoretical or illusory" but "practical and effective" (see Salduz, cited above, § 51, with further references).

• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 13807/08

  KAPLAN v. TURKEY

  50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016).

  Referring to the Court's judgment in the case of Salduz v. Turkey ([GC] no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008), and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016), the Government suggested in a broad manner that there were compelling reasons for delaying access to legal assistance arising from the potential loss of life on a large scale and the urgent need to obtain information on possible planned attacks as well as the severe practical constraints under which the police were operating.

• EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 15185/05

  IZZET ÇELIK v. TURKEY

  On 7 October 2016 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 (Salduz, cited above, § 58; and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 274.) In that respect, the Court notes that in convicting him, the first-instance court relied on the applicant's statements to the police.

 
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 38740/09

  MEHMET DUMAN v. TURKEY

  On 7 October 2016 the Court 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).

  Nor have they demonstrated that the absence of legal assistance at the initial stage of the investigation did not irretrievably prejudice the applicant's defence rights (see Salduz, cited above, § 58, and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 274.) In that respect, the Court notes that in convicting him, the first-instance court relied on, inter alia, the evidence collected in the absence of a lawyer during the applicant's twenty-two days" detention, such as his statements to the police and the public prosecutor and his statements taken during the reconstruction of events and the on-site inspections.

• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 58593/09

  MAGIN v. TURKEY

  On 12 October 2016 the Vice-President of the Second Section invited the Government to submit further observations, if they wish, in the light of the judgment in Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016).

  Referring to the Court's judgment in the case of Salduz v. Turkey ([GC] no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008) and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016), the Government suggested in a broad manner that there were compelling reasons for delaying access to legal assistance arising from the potential loss of life on a large scale and the urgent need to obtain information on possible planned attacks as well as the severe practical constraints under which the police were operating.

• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 49009/09

  ISIK v. TURKEY

  On 12 October 2016 the Vice-President of the Second Section invited the Government to submit further observations, if they wished, in the light of 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 (see Salduz, cited above, § 58, and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 274, ECHR 2016).

• EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 28338/07

  ÖMER GÜNER v. TURKEY

  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, 27.02.2018 - 30811/11

  TAS v. TURKEY

  On 12 October 2016 the Vice-President of the Second Section invited the Government to submit further observations, if they wished, in the light of the judgment in Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016.

  Referring to the Court's judgment in the case of Salduz v. Turkey ([GC] no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008) and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016), the Government suggested in a broad and abstract manner that there were compelling reasons for delaying access to legal assistance arising from the potential loss of life on a large scale and the urgent need to obtain information on possible planned attacks as well as the severe practical constraints under which the police were operating.

• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 1236/09

  YASAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  On 7 October 2016 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).

  50541/08 and 3 others, § 274, ECHR 2016) In that respect, the Court notes that in convicting the applicants, the first-instance court relied on their statements to the police.

• EGMR - 5616/13 (anhängig)

  KONOREV v. RUSSIA

  The application concerns the applicant's conviction for illicit making of drugs and his allegation that his conviction was based to a significant extent on his self-incriminating explanations made in the absence of a lawyer during his arrest and strip search (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008 and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016).

  Having regard to his conviction on 29 August 2012 by the Zavodskiy District Court of Saratov, as upheld on 1 November 2012 by the Saratov Regional Court, has there been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the use at trial of the applicant's self-incriminating explanations made during his arrest and strip search on 12 July 2012 (see Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, §§ 260-62, 274, 280-94, 301-11, ECHR 2016)? In particular,.

• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 47079/06

  GÜNES v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 48719/08

  SIMSEK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 47628/11

  TASARSU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 46851/07

  YAMAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 21163/08

  AYDEMIR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 37315/10

  SERTKAYA v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 27303/09

  SAHIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 41954/10

  ELIF NAZAN SEKER v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 11.07.2019 - 30828/13

  BLOISE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 11.07.2019 - 62313/12

  OLIVIERI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 39325/13

  AFONSO VALENTE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 76344/13

  ABDOUNI ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 63208/12

  ORSINI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 30951/12

  D.W. c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 45287/11

  SOLTANI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 53464/11

  TISSET c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 60506/13

  LAUREUX c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 55912/09

  DUDKA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 24.04.2018 - 23040/07

  GELETEY v. UKRAINE