Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,44286
EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,44286)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16.01.2007 - 27561/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,44286)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16. Januar 2007 - 27561/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,44286)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,44286) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation de l'art. 5-3 Violation de l'art. 6-1 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SOLMAZ v. TURKEY

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

 
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 ... (111)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

  • EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

    PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02
    The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to that in the present application (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Ertürk v. Turkey, no. 15259/02, 12 April 2005).
  • EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

    LETELLIER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02
    Although, in general, the expression "the state of 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; Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A; and Demirel v. Turkey, no. 39324/98, § 59, 28 January 2003).
  • EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

    TOMASI c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02
    Although, in general, the expression "the state of 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; Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A; and Demirel v. Turkey, no. 39324/98, § 59, 28 January 2003).
     
  • EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

    WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02
    It is therefore not open to the Court to set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because the Government concerned have not made a preliminary objection based on it (see Walker v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
  • EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 73038/01

    ALTIN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02
    Nevertheless, when deciding on the reasonableness of the last period of detention, account was taken of the previous periods of detention to which the applicant had already been subjected (see, among others, Kalay v. Turkey, no. 16779/02, § 34, 22 September 2005; Gıyasettin Altun v. Turkey, no. 73038/01, § 28, 24 May 2005; Çiçekler v. Turkey, no. 14899/03, § 61, 22 December 2005; Bahattin Sahin v. Turkey (dec.), no. 29874/96, ECHR 17 October 2000, and Köse v. Turkey (dec.), no. 50177/99, ECHR 2 May 2006).
  • EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 16779/02

    KALAY v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02
    Nevertheless, when deciding on the reasonableness of the last period of detention, account was taken of the previous periods of detention to which the applicant had already been subjected (see, among others, Kalay v. Turkey, no. 16779/02, § 34, 22 September 2005; Gıyasettin Altun v. Turkey, no. 73038/01, § 28, 24 May 2005; Çiçekler v. Turkey, no. 14899/03, § 61, 22 December 2005; Bahattin Sahin v. Turkey (dec.), no. 29874/96, ECHR 17 October 2000, and Köse v. Turkey (dec.), no. 50177/99, ECHR 2 May 2006).
  • EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 50177/99

    KÖSE ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02
    Nevertheless, when deciding on the reasonableness of the last period of detention, account was taken of the previous periods of detention to which the applicant had already been subjected (see, among others, Kalay v. Turkey, no. 16779/02, § 34, 22 September 2005; Gıyasettin Altun v. Turkey, no. 73038/01, § 28, 24 May 2005; Çiçekler v. Turkey, no. 14899/03, § 61, 22 December 2005; Bahattin Sahin v. Turkey (dec.), no. 29874/96, ECHR 17 October 2000, and Köse v. Turkey (dec.), no. 50177/99, ECHR 2 May 2006).
  • EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

    B. ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02
    This general principle asserted in Wemhoff has been confirmed in B. v. Austria (judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, p. 23, § 9).
  • EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

    Neumeister ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02
    In Neumeister v. Austria (judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, p. 37, § 6), the applicant's initial period of detention ended more than six months before the date on which he lodged his application with the Commission.
  • EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

    VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02
    The Court reiterates that the word "conviction", for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (a), is to be understood as signifying both a finding of guilt, after it has been established in accordance with the law that an offence has been committed, and the imposition of a penalty or other measure involving a deprivation of liberty (see Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 19, § 35).
  • EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

    Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  • EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 45749/06

    Verletzung des Rechts auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung durch das …

    Der Gerichtshof hat die Rüge der Beschwerdeführerin, so wie sie von ihr erhoben wurde, geprüft und dabei alle ihm zur Verfügung stehenden Unterlagen sowie die Tatsache berücksichtigt, dass eine Freiheitsentziehung nach Artikel 5 Abs. 3 im Sinne der Konvention endet, wenn die Schuld festgestellt und die Strafe erstinstanzlich verhängt worden ist (siehe u.a. Solmaz ./. Türkei, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 27561/02, Rdnr. 24-26, ECHR 2007. (auszugsweise)).
  • EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

    IDALOV c. RUSSIE

    « 80. Dans des cas où les requérants ont continué à être privés de leur liberté alors que la procédure pénale était pendante en appel, la Cour a toujours considéré comme un tout de multiples périodes consécutives de détention provisoire et jugé que le délai de six mois ne devait commencer à courir qu'à partir de la fin de la dernière période de détention (voir, parmi de nombreux autres précédents, Solmaz c. Turquie, no 27561/02, §§ 34-37, [16 janvier 2007]).
  • EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 23755/07

    BUZADJI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

    The period to be taken into consideration starts when the person is arrested (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, § 83, Series A no. 241-A) or remanded in custody (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 34, Series A no. 207), and ends when he or she is released and/or the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see, among other authorities, Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, p. 23, § 9, Series A no. 7; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 147, ECHR 2000-IV; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 110, ECHR 2002-VI; and Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 23-24, 16 January 2007).
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