Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TASPINAR v. TURKEY

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review) (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 33683/08
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 33683/08

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 4860/09

  TURGUT ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 33683/08

  A description of the relevant domestic law and practice can be found in A.S. v. Turkey (no. 58271/10, § 34-35, 13 September 2016); Altinok v. Turkey (no. 31610/08, §§ 28-32, 29 November 2011); and Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013).

  Subsequently, in its decision in the case of Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013), the Court declared a new application inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, that is to say the new remedy.

• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 58271/10

  A.S. c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 33683/08

  A description of the relevant domestic law and practice can be found in A.S. v. Turkey (no. 58271/10, § 34-35, 13 September 2016); Altinok v. Turkey (no. 31610/08, §§ 28-32, 29 November 2011); and Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013).

  The Court observes that the domestic remedy in application of Article 141 § 1 (d) of the CCP with regard to length of detention on remand was examined in the cases of Sefik Demir v. Turkey, ((dec.), no. 51770/07, §§ 17-35, 16 October 2012), and A.S. v. Turkey (no. 58271/10, §§ 85-95, 13 September 2016).

• EGMR, 12.01.2006 - 18888/02

  IÇYER c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 33683/08

  However, as the Court has held on many occasions, this rule is subject to exceptions, which may be justified by the particular circumstances of each case (see Içyer v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18888/02, § 72, ECHR 2006-I).

 
• EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 11929/12

  TUTAL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 33683/08

  The Court has previously departed from this rule in cases concerning the above-mentioned remedy in respect of the length of detention, which became applicable after the final decision on the criminal proceedings (see also, among others, Tutal and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 11929/12, 28 January 2014).
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 51770/07

  DEMIR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 33683/08

  The Court observes that the domestic remedy in application of Article 141 § 1 (d) of the CCP with regard to length of detention on remand was examined in the cases of Sefik Demir v. Turkey, ((dec.), no. 51770/07, §§ 17-35, 16 October 2012), and A.S. v. Turkey (no. 58271/10, §§ 85-95, 13 September 2016).
• EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 31610/08

  ALTINOK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 33683/08

  A description of the relevant domestic law and practice can be found in A.S. v. Turkey (no. 58271/10, § 34-35, 13 September 2016); Altinok v. Turkey (no. 31610/08, §§ 28-32, 29 November 2011); and Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013).
• EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 24240/07

  ÜMMÜHAN KAPLAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 33683/08

  The Court observes that, a new domestic remedy has been established in Turkey following the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012).
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 1651/05

  DOGAN AND KALIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 33683/08

  The Court considers that the applicant's complaint under Article 13 should be examined from the standpoint of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, being the lex specialis in the matter (see Dogan and Kalin v. Turkey, no. 1651/05, § 15, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 7067/06

  ERISEN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 33683/08

  The Court reiterates that it has already examined a similar grievance in the cases of Erisen and Others v. Turkey (no. 7067/06, § 53, 3 April 2012) and Karaosmanoglu and Özden (no. 4807/08, § 76, 17 June 2014), and found a violation of Article 5 § 4. It has examined the present case and finds no particular circumstances which would require it to depart from its findings in the above-mentioned judgments.