Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YEGER v. TURKEY

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  YEGER v. TURKEY

  Art. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. 1, Art. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 47081/06

  M.T.B. v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 4099/12

  The relevant domestic law regarding trials in absentia may be found in M.T.B. v. Turkey (no. 47081/06, §§ 30-36, 12 June 2018).

  The general principles with regard to the compatibility with Article 6 of the Convention of proceedings held in the absence of the accused may be found in Sejdovic v. Italy ([GC], no. 56581/00, §§ 81-88, ECHR 2006-II; see also Sanader v. Croatia, no. 66408/12, §§ 50-53 and 67-74, 12 February 2015, and M.T.B. v. Turkey, no. 47081/06, §§ 48-64, 12 June 2018, for the application of those principles in the context of criminal proceedings in Turkey).

• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 33502/07

  MARINOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 4099/12

  The Court also dismisses the applicant's claims in respect of pecuniary damage in so far as they concern item (ii) owing to his failure to submit any document showing that he had paid the payment order and item, (iii) as no causal link could be established between the health problems the applicant had encountered long after his release and the violations found in the present case (see Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 33502/07 and 3 others, § 119, 12 July 2016, and compare Bragi Guðmundur Kristjánsson v. Iceland, no. 12951/18, § 81, 31 August 2021).
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 47146/11

  T. AND A. v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 4099/12

  However, as Turkey has not ratified the above-mentioned Protocol, this complaint must be declared incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 (see T. and A. v. Turkey, no. 47146/11, § 102, 21 October 2014).

 
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 12951/18

  BRAGI GUÐMUNDUR KRISTJÁNSSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 4099/12

  The Court also dismisses the applicant's claims in respect of pecuniary damage in so far as they concern item (ii) owing to his failure to submit any document showing that he had paid the payment order and item, (iii) as no causal link could be established between the health problems the applicant had encountered long after his release and the violations found in the present case (see Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 33502/07 and 3 others, § 119, 12 July 2016, and compare Bragi Guðmundur Kristjánsson v. Iceland, no. 12951/18, § 81, 31 August 2021).
• EGMR, 28.03.2019 - 39718/09

  KERESELIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 4099/12

  However, although not every Article 6 violation results in a violation of Article 5 § 1 (a), the Court has also held that if a "conviction" is the result of proceedings which were "manifestly contrary to the provisions of Article 6 or the principles embodied therein", the resulting deprivation of liberty would not be justified under Article 5 § 1 (a) (see Stoichkov, cited above, § 51, with further references; see also Kereselidze v. Georgia, no. 39718/09, § 48, 28 March 2019).
• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 4099/12

  The applicant did not advance such an argument before the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, § 127, Series A no. 80), but he simply submitted that he had not been served with any document relating to the criminal proceedings against him.
• EGMR, 12.02.1985 - 9317/81

  RUBINAT v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 4099/12

  Thirdly, even assuming that the applicant could potentially be reproached for failing to inform the authorities of his address (see Colozza v. Italy, 12 February 1985, § 32, Series A no. 89), the Court considers that it would be too great a leap to attach to such a failure the rationale that the applicant was either aware of the criminal proceedings or intended to evade justice.
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  STOICHKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 4099/12

  It remains to be determined whether the applicant was able to obtain from a court which has heard him a fresh determination of the merits of the charge, in respect of both law and fact (see Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 55, 24 March 2005).
• EKMR, 27.10.1998 - 18902/91

  H.N. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 4099/12

  Fourthly, the same consideration also holds true in respect of the mere fact of being abroad - a fact that was not contested by the applicant - which does not in and of itself suffice to provide an unequivocal indication in respect of the Government's argument (see Stoyanov-Kobuladze v. Bulgaria, no. 25714/05, § 41, 25 March 2014, and compare H.N. v. Italy, no. 18902/91, Commission decision of 27 October 1998, unreported, § 1).
• EGMR, 23.07.2020 - 37368/15

  CHONG CORONADO c. ANDORRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 4099/12

  The Court cannot find that those grounds corresponded to objective factors which were in and of themselves sufficient to conclude that he could have been deemed to have had effective knowledge of the proceedings against him (see Sejdovic, cited above, § 99, and compare Vyacheslav Korchagin v. Russia, no. 12307/16, § 76, 28 August 2018) or that he had intended to escape trial or otherwise waived his right to be present in any other way (see Chong Coronado v. Andorra, no. 37368/15, §§ 42-43, 23 July 2020).
• EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 12307/16

  VYACHESLAV KORCHAGIN v. RUSSIA

• EGMR - 52638/15 (anhängig)

  SHAHI v. ITALY

  Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him (see Yeger v. Turkey, no. 4099/12, § 30, 7 June 2022)? Was he able to take part in new hearings and to obtain a fresh determination on the merits of the charge against him, in respect of both law and fact, as required by the case-law of the Court (see Sanader v. Croatia, no. 66408/12, §§ 67-68, 12 February 2015)?.