Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 7851/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2018,4856
EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 7851/05 (https://dejure.org/2018,4856)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13.03.2018 - 7851/05 (https://dejure.org/2018,4856)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13. März 2018 - 7851/05 (https://dejure.org/2018,4856)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,4856) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CANSAD AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

  • EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

    AYDIN ÇETINKAYA v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 7851/05
    It further considers that the most appropriate form of redress would be a retrial of the applicants in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, should they so request (see Aydin Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 119, 2 February 2016).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

    PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 7851/05
    The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants, and the conduct of the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
  • EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 27582/07

    MEHMET ZEKI ÇELEBI v. TURKEY

    The Court has already examined the same legal problem and found violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in cases against Turkey both before and after the above-mentioned Ibrahim and Others judgment (for the Court's approach prior to the Ibrahim and Others judgment, see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; Irmak v. Turkey, no. 20564/10, 12 January 2016; Galip Dogru v. Turkey, no. 36001/06, 28 April 2015; Eraslan and Others v. Turkey, no. 59653/00, 6 October 2009; Halil Kaya, cited above; Ditaban v. Turkey, no. 69006/01, 14 April 2009; and Ibrahim Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 16500/04, 17 February 2009; and for the Court's approach following the Ibrahim and Others judgment, see Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, 23 October 2018; Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; Can??ad and Others v. Turkey, no. 7851/05, 13 March 2018; Giri??en v. Turkey, no. 53567/07, 13 March 2018; Izzet Çelik v. Turkey, no. 15185/05, 23 January 2018; and Bayram Koç v. Turkey, no. 38907/09, 5 September 2017).
  • EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 74345/11

    SARAR v. TURKEY

    The Court has already examined the same legal problem and found violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in cases against Turkey both before and after the above-mentioned judgment in Ibrahim and Others (for the Court's approach prior to the Ibrahim and Others judgment, see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; Irmak v. Turkey, no. 20564/10, 12 January 2016; Galip Dogru v. Turkey, no. 36001/06, 28 April 2015; Eraslan and Others v. Turkey, no. 59653/00, 6 October 2009; Halil Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22922/03, 22 September 2009; Ditaban v. Turkey, no. 69006/01, 14 April 2009; and Ibrahim Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 16500/04, 17 February 2009; and for the Court's approach following the judgment in Ibrahim and Others, see Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, 23 October 2018; Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; Can?Ÿad and Others v. Turkey, no. 7851/05, 13 March 2018; Giri?Ÿen v. Turkey, no. 53567/07, 13 March 2018; Izzet Çelik v. Turkey, no. 15185/05, 23 January 2018; and Bayram Koç v. Turkey, no. 38907/09, 5 September 2017).
  • EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 35935/10

    KORKMAZ v. TURKEY

    The Court has already examined the same legal problem and found violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in cases against Turkey both before and after the above-mentioned Ibrahim and Others judgment (for the Court's approach prior to the Ibrahim and Others judgment, see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; no. 20564/10, 12 January 2016; Galip Dogru v. Turkey, no. 36001/06, 28 April 2015; Eraslan and Others v. Turkey, no. 59653/00, 6 October 2009; Halil Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22922/03, 22 September 2009; Ditaban v. Turkey, no. 69006/01, 14 April 2009; and Ibrahim Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 16500/04, 17 February 2009; and for the Court's approach following the Ibrahim and Others judgment, see Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, 23 October 2018; Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; Cansad and Others v. Turkey, no. 7851/05, 13 March 2018; Girisen v. Turkey, no. 53567/07, 13 March 2018; Izzet Çelik v. Turkey, no. 15185/05, 23 January 2018; and Bayram Koç v. Turkey, no. 38907/09, 5 September 2017).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 20458/17

    ERIS v. TURKEY

    The Court has already examined the same legal problem and found violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in cases against Turkey both before and after the above-mentioned Ibrahim and Others judgment (for the Court's approach prior to the Ibrahim and Others judgment, see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; no. 20564/10, 12 January 2016; Galip Dogru v. Turkey, no. 36001/06, 28 April 2015; Eraslan and Others v. Turkey, no. 59653/00, 6 October 2009; Halil Kaya, cited above; Ditaban v. Turkey, no. 69006/01, 14 April 2009; and Ibrahim Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 16500/04, 17 February 2009; and for the Court's approach following the Ibrahim and Others judgment, see Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, 23 October 2018; Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; Can?Ÿad and Others v. Turkey, no. 7851/05, 13 March 2018; Giri?Ÿen v. Turkey, no. 53567/07, 13 March 2018; Izzet Çelik v. Turkey, no. 15185/05, 23 January 2018; Bayram Koç v. Turkey, no. 38907/09, 5 September 2017; and Mehmet Zeki Çelebi, cited above).
  • EGMR, 02.04.2019 - 6337/10

    EROGLU AND AKDEMIR v. TURKEY

    The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning the complaints that had been communicated to the Government in the present case (see, in respect of the systemic denial of access to a lawyer and the use of evidence obtained in the absence of a lawyer to convict an applicant, Beuze v. Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, 9 November 2018; Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, 23 October 2018; Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; Giri??en v. Turkey, no. 53567/07, 13 March 2018; Can??ad and Others v. Turkey, no. 7851/05, 13 March 2018; Izzet Çelik v. Turkey, no. 15185/05, 23 January 2018; and Bayram Koç v. Turkey, no. 38907/09, 5 September 2017; see, in respect of failure to inform an individual of his rights prior to investigative actions and the use by the trial court of evidence obtained therefrom, Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht