Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 70337/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,63278
EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 70337/01 (https://dejure.org/2009,63278)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20.01.2009 - 70337/01 (https://dejure.org/2009,63278)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20. Januar 2009 - 70337/01 (https://dejure.org/2009,63278)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,63278) 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

    GUVEC v. TURKEY

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 3 Violations of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    GUVEC c. TURQUIE

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation de l'art. 3 Violations de l'art. 5-3 Violation de l'art. 5-4 Violation de l'art. 6-1+6-3-c Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - reparation (französisch)

 
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 ... (31)

  • EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 25703/11

    DVORSKI v. CROATIA

    Toutefois, si la carence de l'avocat commis d'office ou, dans certaines circonstances, de l'avocat rétribué sur des fonds privés, apparaît manifeste, l'article 6 § 3 c) de la Convention oblige les autorités nationales à intervenir (Güveç c. Turquie, no 70337/01, §§ 130-131, CEDH 2009 (extraits)).
  • EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 17526/10

    GÜLCÜ v. TURKEY

    What is more, the applicant was detained pending trial for almost four months and the Government did not argue that alternative methods had been considered first or that the applicant's detention had been used only as a measure of last resort, in compliance with their obligations under both domestic law and a number of international conventions (see, mutatis mutandis, Güveç v. Turkey, no. 70337/01, § 108, ECHR 2009 (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 47146/11

    T. AND A. v. TURKEY

    Having regard to the fact that the applicant was detained at the Kumkapı Foreigners" Removal Centre for a brief period of time and its finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of detention at Istanbul Atatürk Airport, the Court considers that that there is no need to give a separate ruling on her complaints under this head (see, mutatis mutandis, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37910/97, § 64, 10 May 2007 and Güveç v. Turkey, no. 70337/01, § 135, ECHR 2009).
  • EGMR, 27.04.2017 - 34015/07

    ZHERDEV v. UKRAINE

    Turning to the second element of the alleged ill-treatment, the applicant's placement with adult detainees, the Court notes that it lasted for a relatively short period of time, three days (contrast, for example, Güveç v. Turkey, no. 70337/01, §§ 91 and 98, ECHR 2009 (extracts)), and the applicant did not allege that those detainees subjected him to any hostile treatment.
  • EGMR, 26.02.2013 - 24589/04

    BOZKIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    However, it seems to me to be a logical imperative that, where violations of several substantive provisions of the Convention have been found, these should be taken into consideration under Article 41. Obviously, the Court does so under normal circumstances (see, for example, the case of Güvec v. Turkey, no. 70337/01, ECHR 2009 (extracts), in which the Court, in calculating non-pecuniary damages for the purposes of Article 41, explicitly had regard to the "multiple violations" of the Convention it had previously found (§ 140)).
  • EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 66066/09

    DINÇ ET ÇAKIR c. TURQUIE

    La Cour rappelle avoir, dans plusieurs affaires contre la Turquie dans lesquelles elle a exprimé son inquiétude face à la pratique consistant à placer des mineurs en détention provisoire, conclu à la violation de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention (Selçuk c. Turquie, no 21768/02, §§ 26-37, 10 janvier 2006, Güveç c. Turquie, no 70337/01, §§ 106-110, CEDH 2009 (extraits), et Nart c. Turquie, no 20817/04, §§ 28-35, 6 mai 2008).
  • EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03

    MERYEM ÇELIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    It concludes therefore that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the applicants" remaining complaints under the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, § 132, 22 July 2008; Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 271, ECHR 2005-II); and Güveç v. Turkey, no. 70337/01, § 135, ECHR 2009).
  • EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 30743/09

    KUPARADZE v. GEORGIA

    In this connection, contrary to the applicant's complaint, her placement in the section for juvenile offenders does not, in and of itself, raise an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, D.G. v. Ireland, no. 39474/98, § 97, ECHR 2002-III, and contrast with Güveç v. Turkey, no. 70337/01, § 98, ECHR 2009 (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 65032/09

    A.V. v. UKRAINE

    A person's young age can also be grounds for considering him or her to be particularly vulnerable (see Güveç v. Turkey, no. 70337/01, § 131, ECHR 2009 (extracts)), as can a particular medical condition (see Borotyuk v. Ukraine, no. 33579/04, § 82, 16 December 2010).
  • EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 49651/06

    MEDENI UGUR c. TURQUIE

    La Cour rappelle que dans plusieurs affaires contre la Turquie, elle a exprimé son inquiétude face à la pratique consistant à placer des mineurs en détention provisoire et conclu à la violation de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention (Selçuk c. Turquie, no 21768/02, §§ 26-37, 10 janvier 2006, Güveç c. Turquie, no 70337/01, §§ 106-110, 29 janvier 2009, et Nart c. Turquie, no 20817/04, §§ 28-35, 6 mai 2008).
  • EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 17362/03

    CEVAT SOYSAL v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 28074/08

    FILIZ c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 28451/08

    ÇARKÇI v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 1413/07

    ÇOSELAV v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 36475/10

    AGIT DEMIR c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 50372/09

    ATHARY v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 28053/10

    BILAL DOGAN c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 6840/08

    MAHMUT OZ c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 2335/09

    TKACHUK c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 34421/09

    J.M. v. DENMARK

  • EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 50002/08

    FALCÃO DOS SANTOS c. PORTUGAL

  • EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 23639/10

    FIKRI YAKAR c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 23601/10

    TURGUT OZKAN c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 23623/10

    TASCI ET DEMIR c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 37315/10

    SERTKAYA v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 27.10.2016 - 37614/11

    SHUKUROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  • EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 6670/10

    ÇELIK c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 7945/05

    UYANIK AND KABADAYI v. TURKEY

  • EGMR - 66859/12 (anhängig)

    ARPALI v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 32008/05

    ETEM KARAGÖZ v. TURKEY

  • EGMR - 45801/12 (anhängig)

    UCA c. TURQUIE

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