Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M.T.B. v. TURKEY

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  M.T.B. v. TURKEY

  Art. 6 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 12.02.1985 - 9317/81

  RUBINAT v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 47081/06

  Reiterating that the impossibility of holding a trial by default may paralyse the conduct of criminal proceedings, in that it may lead, for example, to the dispersal of evidence, the expiry of the time-limit for a prosecution, or a miscarriage of justice (Colozza v. Italy, 12 February 1985, § 29, Series A no. 89), the Court considers that the applicant's trial in absentia had a legal basis under the Turkish law in force at the material time.
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  SOMOGYI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 47081/06

  As for non-pecuniary damage, the Court refers to its settled case-law to the effect that, in the event of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant should, in so far as possible, be put in the position that he would have been in had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded (see Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  MOREIRA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 47081/06

  It further considers that where, as in the instant case, an individual has been convicted following proceedings that have entailed breaches of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, a retrial or the reopening of the case, if requested, represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 49, ECHR 2017 (extracts), and Sejdovic, cited above, § 126).
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 47081/06

  It therefore makes no award in respect of pecuniary damage, since it is not possible to anticipate what the outcome of the trial would have been had it been conducted in the applicant's presence (compare and contrast Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (Article 50), 13 June 1994, § 16-20, Series A no. 285-C, and Party for a Democratic Society (DTP) and Others v. Turkey, nos.

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 13.01.2022 - C-569/20

  Spetsializirana prokuratura (Procès d'un accusé en fuite)

  18 Vgl. z. B. Urteile des EGMR vom 12. Februar 1985, Colozza/Italien (CE:ECHR:1985:0212JUD000902480, § 32), und vom 12. Juni 2018, M.T.B./Türkei (CE:ECHR:2018:0612JUD004708106, §§ 49 bis 53).

  Im Urteil vom 12. Juni 2018, M.T.B./Türkei (CE:ECHR:2018:0612JUD004708106, §§ 51 bis 54), hat der EGMR entschieden, dass das Gericht der Hauptsache, indem es sich darauf beschränkt habe, die Entscheidung gemäß den Bestimmungen des innerstaatlichen Rechts mitzuteilen, bei seinen Bemühungen, den Beschwerdeführer ausfindig zu machen, nicht die erforderliche Sorgfalt an den Tag gelegt habe.

  35 Vgl. Urteile des EGMR vom 1. März 2006, Sejdovic/Italien (CE:ECHR:2006:0301JUD005658100, § 84), und vom 12. Juni 2018, M.T.B./Türkei (CE:ECHR:2018:0612JUD004708106, § 61).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 03.03.2022 - C-420/20

  HN (Procès d'un accusé éloigné du territoire)

  Vgl. zur Veranschaulichung Urteile des EGMR vom 12. Februar 1985, Colozza/Italien (CE:ECHR:1985:0212JUD000902480, § 32), und vom 12. Juni 2018, M.T.B./Türkei (CE:ECHR:2018:0612JUD004708106, §§ 49 bis 53).

  44 Vgl. zur Veranschaulichung Urteile des EGMR vom 12. Februar 1985, Colozza/Italien (CE:ECHR:1985:0212JUD000902480, § 32), und vom 12. Juni 2018, M.T.B./Türkei (CE:ECHR:2018:0612JUD004708106, §§ 49 bis 53).

• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 4099/12

  YEGER v. TURKEY

  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, 14.12.2021 - 43469/15

  EJNID c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour note que le requérant a été cité à comparaître à toutes les audiences qui s'étaient déroulées devant les juridictions nationales (paragraphe 1 ci-dessus), y compris à celle du 12 novembre 2008, pour laquelle la citation à comparaître (qui contenait des éléments relatifs à la nature de l'accusation) avait été remise, par les autorités syriennes, à son épouse (paragraphe 4 ci-dessus, voir, mutatis mutandis, Giurgiu c. Roumanie, no 26239/09, déc., § 91, 3 octobre 2017 et à contrario, M.T.B. c. Turquie, no 47081/06, §§ 49-53, 12 juin 2018).
• EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 24245/09

  BACAKSIZ v. TURKEY

  In numerous cases concerning complaints about the fairness of criminal proceedings, the Court has held that although proceedings which took place in the accused's absence are not in themselves incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention, a denial of justice nevertheless occurs where a person convicted in absentia is unable subsequently 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, where it has not been established that he or she waived his or her right to appear and to defend him- or herself (see, for example, Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, §§ 81-88, ECHR 2006-II, and M.T.B. v. Turkey, no. 47081/06, §§ 48-64, 12 June 2018).
• EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 56510/15

  POZDER v. CROATIA

  Hence, in the light of the above-mentioned findings, the Court is unable to conclude that the applicant sought to evade trial in the instant case or unequivocally waived his right to appear in court (compare Sejdovic, §§ 98-101; Sanader, §§ 76-77, both cited above; and M.T.B. v. Turkey, no. 47081/06, §§ 50-54, 12 June 2018; and contrast Medenica v. Switzerland, no. 20491/92, §§ 56-58, ECHR 2001-VI, and Kislov v. Russia, no. 3598/10, §§ 118-19, 9 July 2019).