Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAHIN ALPAY v. TURKEY

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAHIN ALPAY c. TURQUIE

  Exception préliminaire jointe au fond et rejetée (Art. 35) Conditions de recevabilité;(Art. 35-1) Épuisement des voies de recours internes;Partiellement irrecevable (Art. 35) Conditions de recevabilité;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestement mal fondé;Violation de l'article 5 ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (5)

• zeit.de (Pressebericht, 20.03.2018)

  Türkei wegen Inhaftierung zweier Journalisten verurteilt

• lto.de (Pressebericht, 20.03.2018)

  Haft türkischer Journalisten: Bitterer Erfolg in Straßburg

• lto.de (Kurzinformation)

  Der Putschversuch in der Türkei

• archive.is (Pressebericht, 20.03.2018)

  Türkei wegen Haft für Journalisten verurteilt

• welt.de (Pressebericht, 20.03.2018)

  Wie Ankara die Richter in Straßburg austrickste

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ALPAY c. TURQUIE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 18 MRK
  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Neu Zitiert selbst (28)

• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 40984/07

  FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 16538/17

  It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and make all feasible reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I; Assanidze, cited above, § 198; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 487, ECHR 2004-VII; and Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, § 172, 22 April 2010).
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 51902/08

  YÜKSEL c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 16538/17

  As the Court has consistently held, "where the national authorities have found a violation and their decision constitutes appropriate and sufficient redress, the party concerned can no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention" and "[w]hen those two conditions are satisfied, the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention precludes an examination by the Court" (see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, §§ 64-70, Series A no. 51; Caraher v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I; Hay v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41894/98, ECHR 2000-XI; Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, ECHR 2004-VI, Göktepe v. Turkey (dec.), no. 64731/01, 26 April 2005; and Yüksel v. Turkey (dec.), no. 51902/08, § 46, 9 April 2013).
• EGMR, 26.04.2005 - 64731/01

  GÖKTEPE c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 16538/17

  As the Court has consistently held, "where the national authorities have found a violation and their decision constitutes appropriate and sufficient redress, the party concerned can no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention" and "[w]hen those two conditions are satisfied, the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention precludes an examination by the Court" (see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, §§ 64-70, Series A no. 51; Caraher v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I; Hay v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41894/98, ECHR 2000-XI; Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, ECHR 2004-VI, Göktepe v. Turkey (dec.), no. 64731/01, 26 April 2005; and Yüksel v. Turkey (dec.), no. 51902/08, § 46, 9 April 2013).

 
• EGMR, 17.10.2000 - 41894/98

  HAY contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 16538/17

  As the Court has consistently held, "where the national authorities have found a violation and their decision constitutes appropriate and sufficient redress, the party concerned can no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention" and "[w]hen those two conditions are satisfied, the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention precludes an examination by the Court" (see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, §§ 64-70, Series A no. 51; Caraher v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I; Hay v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41894/98, ECHR 2000-XI; Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, ECHR 2004-VI, Göktepe v. Turkey (dec.), no. 64731/01, 26 April 2005; and Yüksel v. Turkey (dec.), no. 51902/08, § 46, 9 April 2013).
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 55120/00

  INDEPENDENT NEWS AND MEDIA AND INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS IRELAND LIMITED v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 16538/17

  According to the Court's case-law, in a legal system designed to protect fundamental rights and freedoms, it is incumbent on the aggrieved individual to test the extent of such protection (see Mirazovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 13628/03, 16 May 2006, and Independent News and Media and Independent Newspapers Ireland Limited v. Ireland (dec.), no. 55120/00, 19 June 2003).
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 3840/10

  Türkei: Verbot von Kurden-Partei DTP war rechtswidrig

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 16538/17

  3840/10 and 6 others, § 74, 12 January 2016).
• EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 16538/17

  Nevertheless, where the nature of the violation found is such as to leave no real choice as to the measures required to remedy it, the Court may decide to indicate only one individual measure, as it did in the cases of Assanidze (cited above, §§ 202-03); Ilascu and Others (cited above, § 490); Aleksanyan v. Russia (no. 46468/06, §§ 239-40, 22 December 2008); Fatullayev (cited above, §§ 176-77); and Del Río Prada v. Spain ([GC], no. 42750/09, §§ 138-39, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84

  MÜLLER AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 16538/17

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that the expression "prescribed by law", within the meaning of Article 10 § 2, requires firstly that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences, and that it should be compatible with the rule of law (see Müller and Others v. Switzerland, 24 May 1988, § 29, Series A no. 133).
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 16538/17

  17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-70, 25 March 2014; and Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 45656/99

  CATALDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 16538/17

  As the Court has consistently held, "where the national authorities have found a violation and their decision constitutes appropriate and sufficient redress, the party concerned can no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention" and "[w]hen those two conditions are satisfied, the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention precludes an examination by the Court" (see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, §§ 64-70, Series A no. 51; Caraher v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I; Hay v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41894/98, ECHR 2000-XI; Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, ECHR 2004-VI, Göktepe v. Turkey (dec.), no. 64731/01, 26 April 2005; and Yüksel v. Turkey (dec.), no. 51902/08, § 46, 9 April 2013).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 24520/94

  CARAHER contre le ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 16.05.2006 - 13628/03

  MIRAZOVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND
• EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 41970/11

  SHCHERBINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 26.10.2017 - 28923/09

  AZZOLINA ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 01.07.1961 - 332/57

  LAWLESS c. IRLANDE (N° 3)
• EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 49574/99

  SÜLEYMAN ERDEM c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 72774/10

  ÇIÇEK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 21235/11

  POYRAZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 35979/97

  KORKMAZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 10211/12

  Sicherungsverwahrung für deutschen Sexualmörder gebilligt

  Eine Person, der die Freiheit entzogen ist, kann die freiheitsentziehende Anordnung auch dann erneut vor den ordentlichen Gerichten überprüfen lassen, wenn ein früheres Verfahren noch beim Bundesverfassungsgericht anhängig ist (…siehe Rdnr. 63; vgl. auch ?žahin Alpay./. Türkei, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 16538/17, Rdnr. 137, ECHR 2018).
• EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 27684/17

  Türkei muss Deniz Yücel für Untersuchungshaft entschädigen

  En ce qui concerne le point de savoir si les mesures prises en l'espèce l'ont été dans la stricte mesure que la situation exigeait et en conformité avec les autres obligations découlant du droit international, la Cour considère qu'un examen sur le fond des griefs du requérant - auquel elle se livrera ci-dessous - est nécessaire (voir également, Sahin Alpay c. Turquie, no 16538/17, § 78, 20 mars 2018).

  Elle se réfère également à ses conclusions dans les arrêts Mehmet Hasan Altan (précité, §§ 161-167) et Sahin Alpay c. Turquie (no 16538/17, §§ 133-139, 20 mars 2018), concernant la durée de la procédure devant la Cour constitutionnelle turque après la tentative de coup d'État du 15 juillet 2016.

• EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 14305/17

  Selahattin Demirtas

  Indeed, an examination of the Grand Chamber cases in which the Court has indicated under Article 46 of the Convention that an applicant should be released shows that in all those judgments, such as Del Río Prada v. Spain ([GC], no. 42750/09, §§ 138-39, ECHR 2013), Ila?Ÿcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, § 490, ECHR 2004-VII) and Assanidze v. Georgia ([GC], no. 71503/01, §§ 202-03, ECHR 2004-II), the indication that the applicants were to be released was based on a complaint in respect of which the Court had found a violation (see also, in respect of Chamber judgments, Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, §§ 239-40, 22 December 2008, Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, §§ 176-77, 22 April 2010, and Sahin Alpay v. Turkey, no. 16538/17, §§ 193-95, 20 March 2018).

 
• EGMR, 31.01.2023 - 43979/17

  ABDULLAH KILIÇ c. TÜRKIYE

  Le requérant, se référant à la jurisprudence de la Cour dans les affaires Mehmet Hasan Altan c. Turquie (no 13237/17, 20 mars 2018) et Sahin Alpay c. Turquie (no 16538/17, 20 mars 2018), conteste la thèse du Gouvernement.

  Elle se réfère également à ses conclusions dans les arrêts Mehmet Hasan Altan (précité, §§ 161-167) et Sahin Alpay c. Turquie (no 16538/17, §§ 133-139, 20 mars 2018), concernant la durée de la procédure devant la Cour constitutionnelle turque après la tentative de coup d'État du 15 juillet 2016.

• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 66375/17

  PARILDAK c. TÜRKIYE

  Quant au point de savoir si les mesures prises en l'espèce l'ont été dans la stricte mesure que la situation exigeait et en conformité avec les autres obligations découlant du droit international, la Cour considère qu'un examen sur le fond des griefs de la requérante - auquel elle se livrera ci-dessous - est nécessaire pour le trancher (voir, également, Sahin Alpay c. Turquie, no 16538/17, § 78, 20 mars 2018).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  NEVZLIN v. RUSSIA

  The applicant referred to the Court's case-law (Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 203, ECHR 2004-II; Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 240, 22 December 2008; Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, § 177, 22 April 2010; Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, § 139, ECHR 2013; and Sahin Alpay v. Turkey, no. 16538/17, § 195, 20 March 2018), in which the Court indicated individual measures.
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 53915/11

  DICLE c. TURQUIE (N° 3)

  Enfin, le cas d'espèce ne concerne pas non plus un grief relatif au contenu d'un article rédigé par un journaliste à travers lequel il aurait fait l'apologie d'une organisation terroriste (Sahin Alpay c. Turquie, no 16538/17, § 22, 20 mars 2018).
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 1210/17

  ILICAK c. TURQUIE (N° 2)

  Compte tenu de cette conclusion, la Cour considère qu'il n'y a pas lieu d'examiner séparément la question de savoir si les raisons données par les juridictions internes pour justifier le maintien en détention de la requérante étaient fondées sur des motifs pertinents et suffisants comme l'exige l'article 5 §§ 1 c) et 3 de la Convention (voir, dans le même sens, Sahin Alpay c. Turquie, no 16538/17, § 122, 20 mars 2018, Sabuncu et autres, précité, § 185, et Ahmet Hüsrev Altan, précité, § 152).
• EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 8857/16

  F.S. v. CROATIA

  The Court has previously accepted that the last stage of a particular remedy may be reached after the application has been lodged but before its admissibility has been determined, as is the situation in the present case (see Karoussiotis v. Portugal, no. 23205/08, § 57, 1 February 2011, and ?žahin Alpay v. Turkey, no. 16538/17, § 86, 20 March 2018).
• EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32245/19

  MACHALIKASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  The Court also notes that it has previously accepted that the last stage of a particular remedy may be reached after the application has been lodged but before its admissibility has been determined, as is the situation in the present case (see Karoussiotis v. Portugal, no. 23205/08, § 57, ECHR 2011 (extracts), and ?žahin Alpay v. Turkey, no. 16538/17, § 86, 20 March 2018).
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 67483/12

  ISÇI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 15064/12

  RAGIP ZARAKOLU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 42201/17

  ÖGRETEN ET KANAAT c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 02.04.2019 - 19699/18

  AKGÜN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 19842/15

  HAZIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 80/17

  MURAT AKSOY c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 37911/12

  S.S. OKUMUSLAR KONUT YAPI KOOPERATIFI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 25939/17

  BULAÇ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 15.12.2020 - 66139/09

  GÜNGÖRMEZ ET DEMIR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 56998/16

  VELECKA AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA