Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MUHAMET AKYOL v. TURKEY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2007 - 23438/02

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

  SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2007 - 23438/02

  The Court refers to the principles adopted in the Solmaz v. Turkey judgment (no. 27561/02, § 36, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)), where it was held that, if the applicant is in effect imprisoned throughout, the multiple, consecutive detention periods should be regarded as a whole and the six-month period should only start running from the end of the last period.
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2007 - 23438/02

  In the Court's view, although, in general, the expression "the state of the 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, § 43; 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).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2007 - 23438/02

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of an accused person's continued detention must be assessed in each case according to its special features (Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 20, § 10).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2007 - 23438/02

  In the Court's view, although, in general, the expression "the state of the 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, § 43; 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).

• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 24801/05

  ÜNAY v. TURKEY

  In line with its case-law (see, Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, § 36, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), and Akyol v. Turkey, no. 23438/02, § 25, 20 September 2007), after deducting the periods when the applicant was detained after conviction under Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention[1] from the total time he has been deprived of his liberty, the period to be taken into consideration in the instant case is eleven years and four months, at the date of adoption of the present judgment.
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 10262/04

  KÖKLÜ v. TURKEY

  As a result, given the applicant's continued detention throughout these different phases, the six-month period should only start running from the end of the last period of pre-trial custody, which is 1 November 2004 (see Akyol v. Turkey, no. 23438/02, § 25, 20 September 2007).
• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 4661/02

  SÜKRAN YILDIZ v. TURKEY

  As a result, given the applicant's continued detention throughout these different phases, the six-month period should only start running from the end of the last period of pre-trial custody, which is 10 August 2001 (see Akyol v. Turkey, no. 23438/02, § 25, 20 September 2007).