Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HASAN DÖNER v. TURKEY

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

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

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2007 - 53546/99

  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.
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2007 - 53546/99

  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.
• EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 46262/99

  SEVGIN AND INCE v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2007 - 53546/99

  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.
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2007 - 53546/99

  The Court recalls that in respect of a person deprived of liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the person's own conduct diminishes human dignity and is, in principle, an infringement of Article 3 (see Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, p. 26, § 38, and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).

• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 59914/16

  NALBANT AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  In those circumstances, and bearing in mind the terms of Rule 60 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court, the Court makes no award in respect of costs and expenses (see, inter alia, Hasan Döner v. Turkey, no. 53546/99, §§ 59-61, 20 November 2007, and Yilmaz Yildiz and Others v. Turkey, no. 4524/06, § 57, 14 October 2014).