Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KALAY v. TURKEY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

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

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 16779/02

  The Court reiterates that, it has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising similar issues to the one in the present application (see, for example, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Dereci v. Turkey, no. 77845/01, 24 May 2005).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 16779/02

  When such grounds are "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (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, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 16779/02

  Finally, 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 applicant complains (see Letellier, cited above; 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, cited above, § 59).
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 16779/02

  When such grounds are "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (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, 24.05.2005 - 77845/01

  DERECI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 16779/02

  The Court reiterates that, it has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising similar issues to the one in the present application (see, for example, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Dereci v. Turkey, no. 77845/01, 24 May 2005).

• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

  SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Nevertheless, when deciding on the reasonableness of the last period of detention, account was taken of the previous periods of detention to which the applicant had already been subjected (see, among others, Kalay v. Turkey, no. 16779/02, § 34, 22 September 2005; Gıyasettin Altun v. Turkey, no. 73038/01, § 28, 24 May 2005; Çiçekler v. Turkey, no. 14899/03, § 61, 22 December 2005; Bahattin Sahin v. Turkey (dec.), no. 29874/96, ECHR 17 October 2000, and Köse v. Turkey (dec.), no. 50177/99, ECHR 2 May 2006).