Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 66210/09 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2020,43151) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ERSÖNMEZ AND SEVIK v. TURKEY
Struck out of the list (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
ERSÖNMEZ AND SEVIK v. TURKEY
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03
SULWINSKA v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 66210/09
It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, for instance, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007 for the principles emerging from the Court's case-law in this regard). - EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 11602/02
SPÓLKA Z O.O. WAZA v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 66210/09
It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, for instance, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007 for the principles emerging from the Court's case-law in this regard). - EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 37272/08
DASTAN v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 66210/09
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the applicants" inability to examine the witnesses against them, the right to effective participation in the proceedings and the lack of adequate reasoning in domestic courts" judgments in response to the applicants" defence arguments concerning the lawfulness of the evidence (see, for example, Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011, as refined in Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 107 and 118, ECHR 2015; and Dastan v. Turkey, no. 37272/08, §§ 23-36, 10 October 2017).