Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HAKAN DUMAN v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 28439/03

  To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt", but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, among many other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV, and Süleyman Erkan v. Turkey, no. 26803/02, § 31, 31 January 2008).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 28439/03

  The Court is aware that this report lacks details and falls significantly short of the standards recommended by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), which are regularly taken into account by the Court in its examination of cases concerning ill-treatment (see, inter alia, Akkoç v. Turkey, nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, § 118, ECHR 2000-X), as well as the guidelines set out in the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("the Istanbul Protocol") submitted to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 100, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

  BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 28439/03

  The Court is aware that this report lacks details and falls significantly short of the standards recommended by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), which are regularly taken into account by the Court in its examination of cases concerning ill-treatment (see, inter alia, Akkoç v. Turkey, nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, § 118, ECHR 2000-X), as well as the guidelines set out in the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("the Istanbul Protocol") submitted to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 100, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 35811/97

  KOLU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 28439/03

  The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time as well as recent developments can be found in the following judgments: Kolu v. Turkey (no. 35811/97, §§ 42 and 44, 2 August 2005), Göç v. Turkey judgment ([GC], no. 36590/97, § 34, ECHR 2002-V), and Demirci v. Turkey (no. 21843/02, § 14, 3 June 2008).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 28439/03

  On this point, the Court relies on the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6 (see, in particular, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 36, Series A no. 275; Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 131, ECHR 2005-IV, § 131; Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 55, 27 November 2008; and Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 100, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 26803/02

  SÜLEYMAN ERKAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 28439/03

  To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt", but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, among many other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV, and Süleyman Erkan v. Turkey, no. 26803/02, § 31, 31 January 2008).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 28439/03

  However, if it is to be effective for Convention purposes, a waiver of the right to take part in the trial must be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to its importance (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 31, Series A no. 277-A).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 28439/03

  The Court's task under the Convention is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see, among other authorities, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 28439/03

  On this point, the Court relies on the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6 (see, in particular, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 36, Series A no. 275; Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 131, ECHR 2005-IV, § 131; Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 55, 27 November 2008; and Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 100, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 28439/03

  Furthermore, it must not run counter to any important public interest (see Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, 21 February 1990, § 66, Series A no. 171-A).
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 36590/97

  GOC ET 48 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA TURQUIE

• EGMR, 02.04.2019 - 6337/10

  EROGLU AND AKDEMIR v. TURKEY

  50541/08 and 3 others, 13 September 2016; and Hakan Duman v. Turkey, no. 28439/03, 23 March 2010; see, in respect of inability to examine absent witnesses, Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, ECHR 2015; Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.