Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2018,38002
EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17 (https://dejure.org/2018,38002)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20.11.2018 - 14305/17 (https://dejure.org/2018,38002)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20. November 2018 - 14305/17 (https://dejure.org/2018,38002)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,38002) 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

    SELAHATTIN DEMIRTAS v. TURKEY (No. 2)

    Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-2-b) Matter already submitted to another international procedure;Preliminary objection allowed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Preliminary ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SELAHATTIN DEMIRTAS c. TURQUIE (N° 2)

    Exception préliminaire rejetée (Art. 35) Conditions de recevabilité;(Art. 35-2-b) Requête déjà soumise à une autre instance internationale;Exception préliminaire retenue (Art. 35) Conditions de recevabilité;(Art. 35-1) Épuisement des voies de recours ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse (4)

In Nachschlagewerken

  • Wikipedia
    +1
    Weitere Entscheidungen mit demselben Bezug
    EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 14305/17

    Selahattin Demirtas

    EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17

    Menschenrechtsgerichtshof fordert Freilassung von Selahattin Demirtas

    (Wikipedia-Eintrag mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)

    Selahattin Demirtas

Sonstiges (3)

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ...Neu Zitiert selbst (48)

  • EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

    Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17
    Moreover, the last sentence of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention shows that when the only remaining reason for detention is the fear that the accused will flee and thus avoid appearing for trial, he or she must be released pending trial if it is possible to obtain guarantees that will ensure that appearance (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, p. 25, § 15, Series A no. 7; Letellier, cited above, § 46; and, more recently, Lukovic v. Serbia, no. 43808/07, § 54, 26 March 2013).

    He argued that acceptance of the Government's restrictive interpretation to the effect that this complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention would be at odds with the principles of interpretation established in the Court's case-law, particularly since the Wemhoff v. Germany judgment (27 June 1968, Series A no. 7).

  • EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

    MARCKX v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17
    In a similar way to Article 14, Article 18 of the Convention has no independent existence (see, in relation to Article 14, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 32, Series A no. 31; Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 43, Series A no. 70; Rasmussen v. Denmark, 28 November 1984, § 29, Series A no. 87; Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 71, Series A no. 94; Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-IV; and Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, § 124, ECHR 2012 (extracts)); it can only be applied in conjunction with an Article of the Convention or the Protocols thereto which sets out or qualifies the rights and freedoms that the High Contracting Parties have undertaken to secure to those under their jurisdiction (see Kamma, at p. 9; Gusinskiy, § 73; Cebotari, § 49; Khodorkovskiy, § 254; OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos, § 663; Lutsenko, § 105; Tymoshenko, § 294; Ilgar Mammadov, § 137; Rasul Jafarov, § 153; and Tchankotadze, § 113, all cited above, all of which expressed the same idea by saying that Article 18 "does not have an autonomous role").
  • EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

    ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17
    In a similar way to Article 14, Article 18 of the Convention has no independent existence (see, in relation to Article 14, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 32, Series A no. 31; Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 43, Series A no. 70; Rasmussen v. Denmark, 28 November 1984, § 29, Series A no. 87; Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 71, Series A no. 94; Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-IV; and Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, § 124, ECHR 2012 (extracts)); it can only be applied in conjunction with an Article of the Convention or the Protocols thereto which sets out or qualifies the rights and freedoms that the High Contracting Parties have undertaken to secure to those under their jurisdiction (see Kamma, at p. 9; Gusinskiy, § 73; Cebotari, § 49; Khodorkovskiy, § 254; OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos, § 663; Lutsenko, § 105; Tymoshenko, § 294; Ilgar Mammadov, § 137; Rasul Jafarov, § 153; and Tchankotadze, § 113, all cited above, all of which expressed the same idea by saying that Article 18 "does not have an autonomous role").
     
  • EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00

    TIMISHEV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17
    55762/00 and 55974/00, § 53, ECHR 2005-XII; and Orsus and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03, § 144, ECHR 2010).".
  • EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

    AIREY v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17
    The mere fact that a restriction of a Convention right or freedom does not meet all the requirements of the clause that permits it does not necessarily raise an issue under Article 18. Separate examination of a complaint under that Article is only warranted if the claim that a restriction has been applied for a purpose not prescribed by the Convention appears to be a fundamental aspect of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, in relation to Article 14 of the Convention, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 30, Series A no. 32; Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94 and 2 others, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, § 35, ECHR 2004-V; Timishev v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

    CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17
    The mere fact that a restriction of a Convention right or freedom does not meet all the requirements of the clause that permits it does not necessarily raise an issue under Article 18. Separate examination of a complaint under that Article is only warranted if the claim that a restriction has been applied for a purpose not prescribed by the Convention appears to be a fundamental aspect of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, in relation to Article 14 of the Convention, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 30, Series A no. 32; Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94 and 2 others, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, § 35, ECHR 2004-V; Timishev v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

    DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17
    The mere fact that a restriction of a Convention right or freedom does not meet all the requirements of the clause that permits it does not necessarily raise an issue under Article 18. Separate examination of a complaint under that Article is only warranted if the claim that a restriction has been applied for a purpose not prescribed by the Convention appears to be a fundamental aspect of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, in relation to Article 14 of the Convention, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 30, Series A no. 32; Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94 and 2 others, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, § 35, ECHR 2004-V; Timishev v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

    STANEV c. BULGARIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17
    It has also found that the detention of an individual is such a serious measure that it is only justified where other, less severe measures have been considered and found to be insufficient to safeguard the individual or public interest which might require that the person concerned be detained (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 143, ECHR 2012).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

    THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17
    In a similar way to Article 14, Article 18 of the Convention has no independent existence (see, in relation to Article 14, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 32, Series A no. 31; Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 43, Series A no. 70; Rasmussen v. Denmark, 28 November 1984, § 29, Series A no. 87; Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 71, Series A no. 94; Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-IV; and Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, § 124, ECHR 2012 (extracts)); it can only be applied in conjunction with an Article of the Convention or the Protocols thereto which sets out or qualifies the rights and freedoms that the High Contracting Parties have undertaken to secure to those under their jurisdiction (see Kamma, at p. 9; Gusinskiy, § 73; Cebotari, § 49; Khodorkovskiy, § 254; OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos, § 663; Lutsenko, § 105; Tymoshenko, § 294; Ilgar Mammadov, § 137; Rasul Jafarov, § 153; and Tchankotadze, § 113, all cited above, all of which expressed the same idea by saying that Article 18 "does not have an autonomous role").
  • EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

    Neumeister ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17
    It is essentially on the basis of the reasons set out in the decisions of the national judicial authorities relating to the applicant's pre-trial detention and of the arguments made by the applicant in his or her requests for release or other appeals that the Court is called upon to decide whether or not there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Wemhoff, cited above, pp. 24-25, § 12; Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, p. 37, §§ 4-5, Series A no. 8; Letellier, cited above, § 35; and Buzadji, cited above, § 91).
  • EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 24479/94

    Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (wesentliche Verfahrensakten; …

  • EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

    Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

  • EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

    MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

    VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 42461/13

    KARÁCSONY ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE

  • EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

    MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

  • EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

    LAMY c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

    CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  • EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79

    RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK

  • EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

    SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

    MAESTRI c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 40984/07

    FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  • EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

    W. c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 09.04.2002 - 46726/99

    PODKOLZINA c. LETTONIE

  • EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 25116/94

    Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (nicht nur auszugsweise Einsicht in …

  • EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 40877/98

    CORDOVA c. ITALIE (N° 1)

  • EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01

    REINPRECHT c. AUTRICHE

  • EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 27154/95

    D.N. c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 8140/08

    CEVIZ c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 33554/03

    LYKOUREZOS v. GREECE

  • EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 69949/01

    AZIZ c. CHYPRE

  • EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 48555/10

    RIZA ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  • EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 14737/08

    USPASKICH v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

    Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

    McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

    WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

    JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

    Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  • EGMR, 22.05.2014 - 15172/13

    ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  • EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

    WLOCH v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

    LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99
  • EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

    CLOOTH v. BELGIUM

  • EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 21235/11

    POYRAZ c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 49574/99

    SÜLEYMAN ERDEM c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 35979/97

    KORKMAZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 72774/10

    ÇIÇEK c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 68309/16

    BARANSU c. TÜRKIYE

    En l'espèce, la période à considérer a débuté le 1er mars 2015 avec le placement en garde à vue du requérant et s'est terminée le 8 mars 2021, date à laquelle il a commencé à purger la peine d'emprisonnement définitive prononcée à l'issue des procédures pénales menées devant la cour d'assises d'Anadolu (paragraphe 6 ci-dessus, et comparer avec Selahattin Demirtas c. Turquie (no 2) [GC], no 14305/17, §§ 290-297, 22 décembre 2020).
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