Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BASER AND ÖZÇELIK v. TÜRKIYE

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BASER c. TURQUIE et 1 autre affaire

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 22.10.2018 - 35553/12

  Urteil bestätigt Präventivhaft: EGMR lässt Polizei Spielraum im Umgang mit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2022 - 30694/15

  Indeed, as seen in the case-law, even if the reasoning of the decision ordering detention is a relevant factor in determining whether a person's detention is to be considered arbitrary (see S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], nos. 35553/12 and 2 others, § 92, 22 October 2018, and Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 79, 9 July 2009), a lack of such reasoning would lead to find a violation only on exceptional occasions (see, for example, Stasaitis v. Lithuania, no. 47679/99, § 67, 21 March 2002; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 70, 2 March 2006; and Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, § 91, 1 March 2007, cases in which the Court considered the absence of any grounds given by the judicial authorities in their decisions authorising detention for a prolonged period of time to be incompatible with the principle of the protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1; see also Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 157, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), where the reasons given were extremely laconic and without reference to any legal provision which would have permitted the applicant's detention, and the Court considered that the decision in issue would not offer sufficient protection from arbitrariness).
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94

  WAITE AND KENNEDY v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2022 - 30694/15

  Unless their interpretation is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 86, ECHR 2007-I), the Court's role is confined to ascertaining whether the effects of that interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 54, ECHR 1999-I; Rohlena v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 59552/08, § 51, ECHR 2015; Alparslan Altan v. Turkey, no. 12778/17, § 110, 16 April 2019; and Bas v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, § 151, 3 March 2020).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2022 - 30694/15

  Unless their interpretation is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 86, ECHR 2007-I), the Court's role is confined to ascertaining whether the effects of that interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 54, ECHR 1999-I; Rohlena v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 59552/08, § 51, ECHR 2015; Alparslan Altan v. Turkey, no. 12778/17, § 110, 16 April 2019; and Bas v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, § 151, 3 March 2020).

 
• EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 12778/17

  Türkei verurteilt: Haft für Verfassungsrichter war illegal

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2022 - 30694/15

  Unless their interpretation is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 86, ECHR 2007-I), the Court's role is confined to ascertaining whether the effects of that interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 54, ECHR 1999-I; Rohlena v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 59552/08, § 51, ECHR 2015; Alparslan Altan v. Turkey, no. 12778/17, § 110, 16 April 2019; and Bas v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, § 151, 3 March 2020).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2022 - 30694/15

  Indeed, as seen in the case-law, even if the reasoning of the decision ordering detention is a relevant factor in determining whether a person's detention is to be considered arbitrary (see S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], nos. 35553/12 and 2 others, § 92, 22 October 2018, and Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 79, 9 July 2009), a lack of such reasoning would lead to find a violation only on exceptional occasions (see, for example, Stasaitis v. Lithuania, no. 47679/99, § 67, 21 March 2002; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 70, 2 March 2006; and Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, § 91, 1 March 2007, cases in which the Court considered the absence of any grounds given by the judicial authorities in their decisions authorising detention for a prolonged period of time to be incompatible with the principle of the protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1; see also Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 157, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), where the reasons given were extremely laconic and without reference to any legal provision which would have permitted the applicant's detention, and the Court considered that the decision in issue would not offer sufficient protection from arbitrariness).
• EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 66448/17

  EGMR verurteilt Türkei: Haft von Ex-Richter verstößt gegen Menschenrechte

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2022 - 30694/15

  Unless their interpretation is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 86, ECHR 2007-I), the Court's role is confined to ascertaining whether the effects of that interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 54, ECHR 1999-I; Rohlena v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 59552/08, § 51, ECHR 2015; Alparslan Altan v. Turkey, no. 12778/17, § 110, 16 April 2019; and Bas v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, § 151, 3 March 2020).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 13237/17

  Türkei wegen Haft für Journalisten verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2022 - 30694/15

  The Court reiterates that a person may be detained under the first branch of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention only in the context of criminal proceedings, for the purpose of bringing him or her before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 50, ECHR 2000-IX, and Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey, no. 13237/17, § 124, 20 March 2018).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2022 - 30694/15

  The Court reiterates that a person may be detained under the first branch of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention only in the context of criminal proceedings, for the purpose of bringing him or her before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 50, ECHR 2000-IX, and Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey, no. 13237/17, § 124, 20 March 2018).

• EGMR, 20.06.2023 - 25285/15

  KARACA c. TÜRKIYE

  Elle a déjà observé dans son arrêt Ba?Ÿer et Özçelik (nos 30694/15 et 30803/15, § 198, 30 janvier 2023) qu'à l'époque des faits les tribunaux correctionnels n'étaient pas compétents en matière de mise en liberté provisoire.