Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SEVGIN AND INCE v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. ... 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 4, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-3 Not necessary to examine Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-5 Violation of Art. 6-1 (composition of state security court) Not necessary to examine remaining complaints under Art. 6 No violation of Art. 13 No violation of Art. ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 46262/99
• EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 46262/99

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 46262/99

  The persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a sine qua non for the validity of the continued detention, but after a certain lapse of time, it no longer suffices; the Court must then establish whether the other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty (see, among other authorities, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 77, 26 July 2001, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 46262/99

  The Court recalls that, in assessing evidence in a claim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, it adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 46262/99

  The persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a sine qua non for the validity of the continued detention, but after a certain lapse of time, it no longer suffices; the Court must then establish whether the other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty (see, among other authorities, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 77, 26 July 2001, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2000-IV).

 
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 46262/99

  However, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention (see, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 46262/99

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, as in the present case, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 32, and Avsar, cited above, § 283).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 46262/99

  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 applicants complain (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; Mansur v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-B, § 55, and Demirel v. Turkey, no. 39324/98, § 59, 28 January 2003).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 46262/99

  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 applicants complain (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; Mansur v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-B, § 55, and Demirel v. Turkey, no. 39324/98, § 59, 28 January 2003).

• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 25060/02

  ERDAL ASLAN c. TURQUIE

  Aux fins de l'appréciation de cette période, la Cour réitère les principes généraux pertinents pour l'examen de l'espèce (voir, notamment, McKay c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 543/03, §§ 41-47, CEDH 2006-X ; et aussi Solmaz, précité, §§ 38-40 ; Sevgin et Ä°nce c. Turquie, no 46262/99, § 61, 20 septembre 2005 ; Ilijkov c. Bulgarie, no 33977/96, § 77, 26 juillet 2001 ; Labita c. Italie [GC], no 26772/95, §§ 152-153, CEDH 2000-IV ; Kudla c. Pologne [GC], no 30210/96, § 110, CEDH 2000-XI ; Smirnova c. Russie, nos 46133/99 et 48183/99, § 59, CEDH 2003-IX ; Letellier c. France, 26 juin 1991, § 43, série A no 207).
• EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 37291/04

  FIRAT v. TURKEY

  The Court refers to the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 5 § 3 (see, in particular, Sevgin and Ä°nce v. Turkey, no. 46262/99, § 61, 20 September 2005; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 77, 26 July 2001; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2000-IV; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI; Smirnova v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 29287/02

  AYHAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 5 § 3 (see, in particular, Sevgin and Ä°nce v. Turkey, no. 46262/99, § 61, 20 September 2005, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 77, 26 July 2001, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2000-IV, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI, Smirnova v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 20.11.2007 - 53546/99

  HASAN DÖNER v. TURKEY

  Having examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its case law on the subject (see, for example, Sevgin and Ä°nce v. Turkey, no. 46262/99, § 61, 20 September 2005; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 77, 26 July 2001; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2000-IV; Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 59, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)and; SaÄ?at and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 8036/02, 6 March 2007), the Court considers that the length of the applicant's remand in custody did not exceed the reasonable time requirement of Article 5 § 3. In reaching this conclusion the Court has taken into account the accusation against the applicant, the reasons given by the courts for his continued detention and the overall length of his remand in custody.