Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 15185/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2018,652
EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 15185/05 (https://dejure.org/2018,652)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23.01.2018 - 15185/05 (https://dejure.org/2018,652)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23. Januar 2018 - 15185/05 (https://dejure.org/2018,652)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,652) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    IZZET ÇELIK v. TURKEY

    No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 ...

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

  • EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 4860/09

    TURGUT ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 15185/05
    A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Salduz v. Turkey ([GC] no. 36391/02, §§ 27-31, ECHR 2008), and Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26 26 March 2013).

    They maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as he had not made any application to that Compensation Commission: this ground had also been recognised by the Court in its decision in the case of Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013).

  • EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 50541/08

    IBRAHIM ET AUTRES CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 15185/05
    On 7 October 2016 the Vice-President of the Second Section invited the Government to submit further observations, if they so wished, following the judgment in Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016).

    The Court does not consider it necessary to examine whether the systematic nature of the restriction on the applicant's right of access to a lawyer was, in itself, sufficient to find a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, as, in any event, the Government have not offered any compelling reasons for the restriction or demonstrated that the absence of legal assistance at the initial stage of the investigation did not irretrievably prejudice the applicant's defence rights (Salduz, cited above, § 58; and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 274.) In that respect, the Court notes that in convicting him, the first-instance court relied on the applicant's statements to the police.

  • EGMR, 30.08.2005 - 68953/01

    CEYLAN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 15185/05
    In this connection, it is necessary to examine the nature of the procedural acts carried out with the participation of the military judge and to verify whether the proceedings on the merits were properly renewed after the military judge had been replaced (see Ceylan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 68953/01, ECHR 2005-X).
  • EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 35935/10

    KORKMAZ v. TURKEY

    The Court has already examined the same legal problem and found violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in cases against Turkey both before and after the above-mentioned Ibrahim and Others judgment (for the Court's approach prior to the Ibrahim and Others judgment, see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; no. 20564/10, 12 January 2016; Galip Dogru v. Turkey, no. 36001/06, 28 April 2015; Eraslan and Others v. Turkey, no. 59653/00, 6 October 2009; Halil Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22922/03, 22 September 2009; Ditaban v. Turkey, no. 69006/01, 14 April 2009; and Ibrahim Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 16500/04, 17 February 2009; and for the Court's approach following the Ibrahim and Others judgment, see Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, 23 October 2018; Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; Cansad and Others v. Turkey, no. 7851/05, 13 March 2018; Girisen v. Turkey, no. 53567/07, 13 March 2018; Izzet Çelik v. Turkey, no. 15185/05, 23 January 2018; and Bayram Koç v. Turkey, no. 38907/09, 5 September 2017).

    In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the awards made in comparable cases (see Salduz, cited above, § 79; Izzet Çelik v. Turkey, no. 15185/05, § 52, 23 January 2018), the Court finds it reasonable to award EUR 1, 000 under this head.

  • EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 27582/07

    MEHMET ZEKI ÇELEBI v. TURKEY

    The Court has already examined the same legal problem and found violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in cases against Turkey both before and after the above-mentioned Ibrahim and Others judgment (for the Court's approach prior to the Ibrahim and Others judgment, see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; Irmak v. Turkey, no. 20564/10, 12 January 2016; Galip Dogru v. Turkey, no. 36001/06, 28 April 2015; Eraslan and Others v. Turkey, no. 59653/00, 6 October 2009; Halil Kaya, cited above; Ditaban v. Turkey, no. 69006/01, 14 April 2009; and Ibrahim Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 16500/04, 17 February 2009; and for the Court's approach following the Ibrahim and Others judgment, see Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, 23 October 2018; Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; Can??ad and Others v. Turkey, no. 7851/05, 13 March 2018; Giri??en v. Turkey, no. 53567/07, 13 March 2018; Izzet Çelik v. Turkey, no. 15185/05, 23 January 2018; and Bayram Koç v. Turkey, no. 38907/09, 5 September 2017).
  • EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 74345/11

    SARAR v. TURKEY

    The Court has already examined the same legal problem and found violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in cases against Turkey both before and after the above-mentioned judgment in Ibrahim and Others (for the Court's approach prior to the Ibrahim and Others judgment, see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; Irmak v. Turkey, no. 20564/10, 12 January 2016; Galip Dogru v. Turkey, no. 36001/06, 28 April 2015; Eraslan and Others v. Turkey, no. 59653/00, 6 October 2009; Halil Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22922/03, 22 September 2009; Ditaban v. Turkey, no. 69006/01, 14 April 2009; and Ibrahim Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 16500/04, 17 February 2009; and for the Court's approach following the judgment in Ibrahim and Others, see Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, 23 October 2018; Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; Can?Ÿad and Others v. Turkey, no. 7851/05, 13 March 2018; Giri?Ÿen v. Turkey, no. 53567/07, 13 March 2018; Izzet Çelik v. Turkey, no. 15185/05, 23 January 2018; and Bayram Koç v. Turkey, no. 38907/09, 5 September 2017).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 20458/17

    ERIS v. TURKEY

    The Court has already examined the same legal problem and found violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in cases against Turkey both before and after the above-mentioned Ibrahim and Others judgment (for the Court's approach prior to the Ibrahim and Others judgment, see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; no. 20564/10, 12 January 2016; Galip Dogru v. Turkey, no. 36001/06, 28 April 2015; Eraslan and Others v. Turkey, no. 59653/00, 6 October 2009; Halil Kaya, cited above; Ditaban v. Turkey, no. 69006/01, 14 April 2009; and Ibrahim Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 16500/04, 17 February 2009; and for the Court's approach following the Ibrahim and Others judgment, see Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, 23 October 2018; Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; Can?Ÿad and Others v. Turkey, no. 7851/05, 13 March 2018; Giri?Ÿen v. Turkey, no. 53567/07, 13 March 2018; Izzet Çelik v. Turkey, no. 15185/05, 23 January 2018; Bayram Koç v. Turkey, no. 38907/09, 5 September 2017; and Mehmet Zeki Çelebi, cited above).
  • EGMR, 02.04.2019 - 6337/10

    EROGLU AND AKDEMIR v. TURKEY

    The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning the complaints that had been communicated to the Government in the present case (see, in respect of the systemic denial of access to a lawyer and the use of evidence obtained in the absence of a lawyer to convict an applicant, Beuze v. Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, 9 November 2018; Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, 23 October 2018; Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; Giri??en v. Turkey, no. 53567/07, 13 March 2018; Can??ad and Others v. Turkey, no. 7851/05, 13 March 2018; Izzet Çelik v. Turkey, no. 15185/05, 23 January 2018; and Bayram Koç v. Turkey, no. 38907/09, 5 September 2017; see, in respect of failure to inform an individual of his rights prior to investigative actions and the use by the trial court of evidence obtained therefrom, Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.
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