Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOC v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 7, Art. 35, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partly struck out of the list Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 21086/04

  DANESHPAYEH c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 55532/09

  Le Gouvernement considère que la procédure interne engagée par la partie requérante a connu une durée excessive au sens de la jurisprudence bien établie de la Cour (Daneshpayeh c. Turquie, no 21086/04, 16 juillet 2009).

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007; and Daneshpayeh v. Turkey, no. 21086/04, §§ 28-29, 16 July 2009).

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 55532/09

  In so far as the applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings before the Ankara Assize Court had not been fair, the Court notes that it is not a court of fourth instance and it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, and Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 49, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 51760/99

  CAMILLERI v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 55532/09

  It also reiterates that it is not its task to review the assessment of evidence by a national court, unless it is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Camilleri v. Malta (dec.), no. 51760/99, 16 March 2000).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 55532/09

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007; and Daneshpayeh v. Turkey, no. 21086/04, §§ 28-29, 16 July 2009).
• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 55532/09

  In so far as the applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings before the Ankara Assize Court had not been fair, the Court notes that it is not a court of fourth instance and it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, and Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 49, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 10.01.2002 - 62566/00

  HAZAR, TEKTAS, BEKIROGLU, PEKOL, BOZKUS, TEKTAS, ATMAN, ISIK, AKSUCU, DOSTER, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 55532/09

  As regards the applicant's complaint under Article 3 of the Convention about his alleged ill-treatment during his time at police custody, the Court recalls that according to its established case law, in the absence of domestic remedies or if such remedies are judged to be ineffective, the six-month time-limit runs from the date of the act complained of (see Hazar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 62566/00, ECHR 2002-II) or from the time when the applicant becomes aware, or should have become aware, of the ineffectiveness of the remedies (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 46477/99, 7 June 2001).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 55532/09

  As regards the applicant's complaint under Article 3 of the Convention about his alleged ill-treatment during his time at police custody, the Court recalls that according to its established case law, in the absence of domestic remedies or if such remedies are judged to be ineffective, the six-month time-limit runs from the date of the act complained of (see Hazar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 62566/00, ECHR 2002-II) or from the time when the applicant becomes aware, or should have become aware, of the ineffectiveness of the remedies (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 46477/99, 7 June 2001).
• EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 52690/99

  MAJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 55532/09

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007; and Daneshpayeh v. Turkey, no. 21086/04, §§ 28-29, 16 July 2009).
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 56026/00

  WENDE AND KUKOWKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 55532/09

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007; and Daneshpayeh v. Turkey, no. 21086/04, §§ 28-29, 16 July 2009).
• EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 11602/02

  SPÓLKA Z O.O. WAZA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 55532/09

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2004-III; also WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03; Stark and Others v. Finland (striking out), no. 39559/02, § 23, 9 October 2007; Silva Marrafa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 56936/08, 25 May 2010; Karal v. Turkey (dec.), no. 44655/09, 29 March 2011; and Barıs Ä°nan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 20315/10, 24 May 2011).
• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03

  SULWINSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 39559/02

  STARK AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 25.05.2010 - 56936/08

  SILVA MARRAFA c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 44655/09

  KARAL c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 20315/10

  BARIS INAN c. TURQUIE