Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 38740/09   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2018,33995
EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 38740/09 (https://dejure.org/2018,33995)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23.10.2018 - 38740/09 (https://dejure.org/2018,33995)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23. Oktober 2018 - 38740/09 (https://dejure.org/2018,33995)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,33995) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MEHMET DUMAN v. TURKEY

    Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (englisch)

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 ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

  • EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 50541/08

    IBRAHIM ET AUTRES CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 38740/09
    On 7 October 2016 the Court 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).

    Nor have they demonstrated that the absence of legal assistance at the initial stage of the investigation did not irretrievably prejudice the applicant's defence rights (see 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, inter alia, the evidence collected in the absence of a lawyer during the applicant's twenty-two days" detention, such as his statements to the police and the public prosecutor and his statements taken during the reconstruction of events and the on-site inspections.

  • EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92

    DIKME c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 38740/09
    Nevertheless, even a confession repeated in court cannot on its own be regarded as a decisive piece of evidence but must be supported by additional evidence (see Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, § 38, ECHR 2000-VIII).
  • EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 21388/15

    ALMASI v. SERBIA

    An investigation of this kind would be necessary even in the absence of a complaint involving Article 3 of the Convention, such as that in the present case (see, mutatis mutandis and among other authorities, Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, § 42, 23 October 2018).
  • 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, 08.10.2019 - 13128/06

    URAZBAYEV c. RUSSIE

    Elle rappelle qu'aucune de ces considérations ne l'empêchent de tenir compte des circonstances dénoncées sous l'angle de l'article 6 (voir, mutatis mutandis, Örs et autres c. Turquie, no 46213/99, § 58, 20 juin 2006, avec les références citées, et Mehmet Duman c. Turquie, no 38740/09, § 45, 23 octobre 2018, avec les références citées).
  • EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 39272/15

    REPESCO ET REPESCU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

    La Cour redit en outre que l'absence d'un grief recevable tiré de l'article 3 de la Convention ne fait pas obstacle en principe à ce qu'elle prenne en considération les allégations du requérant selon lesquelles ses déclarations devant la police ont été recueillies en utilisant des moyens de coercition ou d'oppression et sa thèse selon laquelle leur admission dans le dossier sur la base duquel la juridiction de jugement a statué constitue dès lors une violation des garanties d'équité du procès découlant de l'article 6 de la Convention (Mehmet Duman c. Turquie, no 38740/09, § 42, 23 octobre 2018, et l'affaire qui y est citée).
  • EGMR, 13.06.2023 - 60237/11

    TUNCER AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE

    Moreover, the absence of an admissible Article 3 complaint does not, in principle, preclude the Court from taking into consideration an applicant's allegations that police statements had been obtained using methods of coercion or oppression and that their admission to the case file, relied upon by the trial court, therefore constituted a violation of the fair-trial guarantee of Article 6 (see Aydin Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 104, 2 February 2016, and Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, § 42, 23 October 2018).
  • EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 78510/11

    OKUYUCU v. TURKEY

    Moreover, the absence of an admissible Article 3 complaint does not, in principle, preclude the Court from taking into consideration the applicant's allegations that the police statements had been obtained using methods of coercion or oppression and that their admission to the case file, relied upon by the trial court, therefore constituted a violation of the fair trial guarantee of Article 6 (see Kolu v. Turkey, no. 35811/97, § 54, 2 August 2005; Örs and Others v. Turkey, no. 46213/99, § 60, 20 June 2006; Özcan Çolak v. Turkey, no. 30235/03, § 43, 6 October 2009; Aydin Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 104, 2 February 2016; and Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, § 42, 23 October 2018).
  • 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, 13.10.2020 - 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).
  • 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