Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ÖZDEN BILGIN v. TURKEY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 8610/02

  The persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a sine qua non for the validity of the continued detention, but after a certain lapse of time, it no longer suffices; the Court must then establish whether the other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty (see, among other authorities, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 77, 26 July 2001, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 8610/02

  In so far as the Government suggest that the applicant had failed to comply with the six months rule, the Court recalls that if an applicant submits her complaints to the Court while she is still in detention, the case cannot be dismissed as being out of time (see, in particular, Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 8610/02

  The persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a sine qua non for the validity of the continued detention, but after a certain lapse of time, it no longer suffices; the Court must then establish whether the other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty (see, among other authorities, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 77, 26 July 2001, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2000-IV).

 
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 8610/02

  In this connection, the Court further reiterates that the Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for refusing bail: the risk that the accused will fail to appear for trial; the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice or commit further offences or cause public disorder (see, in particular, Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 59, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 11798/03

  TUTAR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 8610/02

  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, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 8610/02

  Finally, although, in general, the expression "the state of the 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 the length of the detention of which the applicant complains (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 43, Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, and Mansur v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-B, § 55).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 8610/02

  Finally, although, in general, the expression "the state of the 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 the length of the detention of which the applicant complains (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 43, Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, and Mansur v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-B, § 55).

• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 29287/02

  AYHAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court notes that it has already examined and rejected the Government's similar objections regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies in previous cases (see, in particular, Özden Bilgin v. Turkey, no. 8610/02, § 21, 14 June 2007, Tamer and Others v. Turkey, no. 235/02, § 28, 22 June 2006, and Kosti and Others v. Turkey, no. 74321/01, §§ 19-24, 3 May 2007).