Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TUTAR v. TURKEY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ...

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 11798/03

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising similar issues to the one in the present application (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Ertürk v. Turkey, no. 15259/02, 12 April 2005).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 11798/03

  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 detention on remand of twelve years (see 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, and Demirel v. Turkey, no. 39324/98, § 59, 28 January 2003).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 11798/03

  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 detention on remand of twelve years (see 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, and Demirel v. Turkey, no. 39324/98, § 59, 28 January 2003).

• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 7987/07

  ATSIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in cases raising similar issues to those in the present application (see, for example, Tutar v. Turkey, no. 11798/03, §§ 16-20, 10 October 2006, and Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 34-37, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

  KOSTI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  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, 24.07.2007 - 48545/99

  MEHMET SAH ÇELIK v. TURKEY

  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 application 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 v. Turkey, cited above).
• EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 8610/02

  ÖZDEN BILGIN v. TURKEY

  As regards the complaint concerning the length of the applicant's remand in custody, the Court reiterates that it has already examined and rejected the Government's similar objections regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies in previous cases (see, in particular, Tutar v. Turkey, no. 11798/03, §§ 12-14, 10 October 2006).
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 6194/04

  ENGIN v. TURKEY

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in cases raising similar issues to those in the present application (see, for example, Tutar v. Turkey, no. 11798/03, §§ 16-20, 10 October 2006, and Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 34-37, ECHR 2007-II (extracts)).