Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 52658/99 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MEHMET AND SUNA YIGIT v. TURKEY
Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
Preliminary objections dismissed (six-month period non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 6-1 No separate issue under Art. 3 8 and P1-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - ...
Wird zitiert von ... (38) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 29900/96
SADAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (No. 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 52658/99
Having found a violation of this provision (paragraphs 35-39 above), the Court considers that there is no need to make a separate ruling on the applicants' other complaints, given the fact that it cannot determine the issues of malpractice or compensation as a first instance court itself (see Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; Sadak and Others v. Turkey, nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, § 73, ECHR 2001-VIII). - EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 11931/03
TETERINY v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 52658/99
As regards material damage, the Court reiterates that the most appropriate form of redress for a violation of Article 6 § 1 would be to ensure that the applicants, as far as possible, are put in the position in which they would have been had this provision not been disregarded (see Teteriny v. Russia, no. 11931/03, § 56, 30 June 2005; Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41183/02, § 53, ECHR 2006-...). - EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 37410/97
KAMIL UZUN c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 52658/99
Having found a violation of this provision (paragraphs 35-39 above), the Court considers that there is no need to make a separate ruling on the applicants' other complaints, given the fact that it cannot determine the issues of malpractice or compensation as a first instance court itself (see Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; Sadak and Others v. Turkey, nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, § 73, ECHR 2001-VIII). - EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73
AIREY v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 52658/99
The Court recalls at this point that it is for the individual to select which legal remedy to pursue for obtaining redress for the breaches alleged (see Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, § 23). - EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91
TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 52658/99
A restriction placed on access to a court or tribunal will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 unless it pursues a legitimate aim and there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the legitimate aim sought to be achieved (Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, § 59).
- EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 36391/02
Wirksamkeitsverpflichtete Konventionsauslegung; Recht auf konkreten und wirksamen …
The Court's assessment 72. The Court reiterates that the most appropriate form of redress for a violation of Article 6 § 1 would be to ensure that the applicant, as far as possible, is put in the position in which he would have been had this provision not been disregarded (see Teteriny v. Russia, no. 11931/03, § 56, 30 June 2005; Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41183/02, § 53, ECHR 2006-..., and Mehmet and Suna Yigit v. Turkey, no. 52658/99, § 47, 17 July 2007). - EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 50388/06
ELINÇ c. TURQUIE
Le Gouvernement se réfère en outre à certains jugements rendus par la Cour relatifs au droit d'accès à un tribunal (Kreuz c. Pologne, no 28249/95, § 53, CEDH 2001-VI, et Mehmet et Suna YiÄŸit c. Turquie, no 52658/99, § 33-34, 17 juillet 2007).L'arrêt Mehmet et Suna YiÄŸit c. Turquie (no 52658/99, §§ 20-22, 17 juillet 2007) cite les articles du code de procédure civile portant sur l'aide juridictionnelle.
- EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 36629/10
SABA c. ITALIE
Par là, la Cour estime avoir examiné les questions juridiques principales posée par le grief tiré de l'article 3. Compte tenu de l'ensemble des faits de la cause et des arguments des parties, elle considère par conséquent qu'il n'y a pas lieu d'examiner la question de savoir si l'absence, en droit italien, d'une infraction spécifique se rapportant à la notion de torture ou à des traitements inhumains ou dégradants porte en soi atteinte à cette même disposition (voir, mutatis mutandis, Kamil Uzun c. Turquie, no 37410/97, § 64, 10 mai 2007 ; Demirel et autres c. Turquie, no 75512/01, § 29, 24 juillet 2007 ; Mehmet et Suna YiÄŸit c. Turquie, no 52658/99, § 43, 17 juillet 2007 ; et Abdullah Yılmaz c. Turquie, no 21899/02, § 77, 17 juin 2008).
- EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 64301/01
VELCEA ET MAZARE c. ROUMANIE
Compte tenu de l'ensemble des faits de la cause, elle considère par conséquent qu'il ne s'impose pas de statuer séparément sur le grief tiré par le requérant de l'article 5, concernant la défunte (voir Kamil Uzun c. Turquie, no 37410/97, § 64, 10 mai 2007 ; Demirel et autres c. Turquie, no 75512/01, § 29, 24 juillet 2007 ; Mehmet et Suna YiÄŸit c. Turquie, no 52658/99, § 43, 17 juillet 2007 ; Kapan et autres c Turquie, no 71803/01, § 45, 26 juin 2007). - EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 24221/13
CARMEL SALIBA v. MALTA
The Court reiterates that the most appropriate form of redress for a violation of Article 6 § 1 would be to ensure that the applicant, as far as possible, is put in the position in which he would have been had this provision not been disregarded (see Teteriny v. Russia, no. 11931/03, § 56, 30 June 2005; Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41183/02, § 53, ECHR 2006-XII; and Mehmet and Suna Yigit v. Turkey, no. 52658/99, § 47, 17 July 2007). - EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 13476/05
OKAN GÜVEN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 09.02.2016 - 582/05
ÇELEBI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 26.02.2008 - 43443/98
MANSUROGLU c. TURQUIE
Compte tenu de l'ensemble des faits de la cause et des arguments des parties, elle considère par conséquent qu'il ne s'impose pas de statuer séparément sur les autres griefs tirés des articles 3 et 13, concernant le défunt (voir, Kamil Uzun, précité, § 64, 10 mai 2007 ; Feyzi Yıldırım c. Turquie, no 40074/98, § 96, CEDH 2007-... (extraits) ; Demirel et autres c. Turquie, no 75512/01, § 29, 24 juillet 2007 ; Mehmet et Suna YiÄ?it c. Turquie, no 52658/99, § 43, 17 juillet 2007 ; Kapan et autres c Turquie, no 71803/01, § 45, 26 juin 2007). - EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 50514/13
SAQUETTI IGLESIAS c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 38736/04
FC MRETEBI v. GEORGIA
58-59, § 34), the Court considers that the most appropriate form of redress would be to have the applicant's cassation appeal of 5 January 2004 (see paragraph 26 above) examined by the Supreme Court, in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, should the applicant so request (see, Mehmet and Suna YiÄ?it v. Turkey, no. 52658/99, § 47, 17 July 2007; mutatis mutandis, Gençel v. Turkey, no. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003). - EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 41427/14
ATUTXA MENDIOLA ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 03.09.2020 - 31615/16
ROMERO GARCIA c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 53421/15
PARDO CAMPOY ET LOZANO RODRIGUEZ c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 32914/16
CAMACHO CAMACHO c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 2917/05
HUSEYIN OZEL v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 41056/04
AKDAS c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 43529/04
ATLI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 37952/04
SABRI ASLAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 20406/05
MEHMET ALI AYHAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 69006/01
DITABAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 13761/17
ERSOY v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 9564/13
FATIH PRES SAN. VE TIC. LTD. STI. v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 33275/05
ATES MIMARLIK MÜHENDISLIK A.S v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 23321/09
KIRAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 316/07
SERAP DEMIRCI v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 3494/05
ESREF ÇAKMAK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 4574/06
ADNAN ÖZDEMIR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 2910/04
ÇELEBI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 8180/04
IHSAN BARAN c. TURQUIE (N° 1)
- EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 36838/03
GULABI ASLAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 47368/99
SOYKAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 21790/04
YUSUF GEZER c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 5256/02
KARABIL c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 17725/07
ALKAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 1236/05
KABA v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 24739/04
AHMET ARSLAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 17582/04
EYÜP KAYA v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 42415/09
TÜRKOGLU DEMIR SAN. VE TIC. LTD. STI. AND OTHERS v. TURKEY