Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SANCAKLI v. TURKEY

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 1385/07

  However, this does not exclude a cumulative approach in cases where separate analysis of each criterion does not make it possible to reach a clear conclusion as to the existence of a criminal charge (see Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, § 53, ECHR 2009, and Steininger v. Austria, no. 21539/07, § 34, 17 April 2012).
• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 1385/07

  Proceedings before a court are subject to the guarantees of Article 6. Proceedings before an administrative authority are not subject to these guarantees, but if the charge is "criminal" in the (autonomous) sense of Article 6, that provision requires that the person concerned is able to take any decision thus made against him or her before a tribunal that does offer the guarantees of Article 6 (see the principle established in Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, § 56, Series A no. 73).

• EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 17412/16

  VASILE SORIN MARIN v. ROMANIA

  Regarding the third criterion, namely the degree of severity of the measure, the Court observes that even though the fine imposed in the present case was not of a substantial amount (being approximately EUR 50), the maximum fine prescribed by the law for such conduct being itself rather low (approximately EUR 250), nevertheless it was punitive in nature, as already mentioned in paragraph 43 above, the purpose of the fine being not to compensate for the damage caused by the applicant, but rather to deter him from committing the offence again (see, mutatis mutandis, Sancakli v. Turkey, no. 1385/07, § 30, 15 May 2018).
• EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 61177/09

  KORKUT ET AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL TÜRKIYE c. TÜRKIYE

  Au demeurant, la Cour renvoie également à l'affaire Sancakli c. Türkiye (no 1385/07, §§ 28-31, 15 mai 2018), où elle a jugé qu'un cas de faute administrative résultant du non-respect d'une mesure édictée par une autorité publique entrait dans le champ de l'article 6 sous son volet pénal, conclusion qui trouve à s'appliquer en l'espèce.
• EGMR - 15525/23 (anhängig)

  MAKOVAC FRANKA v. SLOVENIA and 1 other application

  (b) Was the dispensing with an oral hearing in the present case justified (see Sancakli v. Turkey, no. 1385/07, § 45, 15 May 2018; Flisar v. Slovenia, no. 3127/09, § 38, 29 September 2011; and Produkcija Plus Storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia, no. 47072/15, § 54, 23 October 2018) and did the domestic courts provide sufficient reason for their decision not to hold an oral hearing (see Mtchedlishvili v. Georgia, no. 894/12, § 39, 25 February 2021)?.