Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALTIN v. TURKEY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-1 Inadmissible under Art. 5-3 (in respect of one period) Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 73038/01

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising similar issues to the one in the present application (see, among other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Ertürk v. Turkey, no. 15259/02, 12 April 2005).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 73038/01

  The Court must then establish whether the other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continue to justify the deprivation of liberty (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, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 73038/01

  The Court must then establish whether the other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continue to justify the deprivation of liberty (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, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 73038/01

  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 v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, 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, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 73038/01

  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 v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, 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, 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).
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

  KOSTI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court has examined several cases against Turkey in which it has found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention based on the fact that, inter alia, the State Security Courts used the same formal reasons for the applicants' continued detention without explaining their specific relevance in each case (see, for example, Hasan Ceylan v. Turkey, no. 58398/00, 23 May 2006, Pakkan v. Turkey, no. 13017/02, 31 October 2006, Gıyasettin Altun v. Turkey, no. 73038/01, 24 May 2005, Tutar v. Turkey, no. 11798/03, 10 October 2006, Mehmet Günes v. Turkey, no. 61908/00, 21 September 2006, Acunbay, cited above, and Tamer and Others, cited above).
• EGMR, 24.07.2007 - 48545/99

  MEHMET SAH ÇELIK v. TURKEY

  The Court has examined several cases against Turkey in which it has found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention based on the fact that, inter alia, the State Security Courts used the same formal reasons for the applicants" continued detention without explaining their specific application in each case (see for example Hasan Ceylan v. Turkey, no. 58398/00, 23 May 2006, Pakkan v. Turkey, no. 13017/02, 31 October 2006, Gıyasettin Altun v. Turkey, no. 73038/01, 24 May 2005, Tutar v. Turkey, no. 11798/03, 10 October 2006, Mehmet Günes v. Turkey, no. 61908/00, 21 September 2006, Acunbay, cited above, and Tamer and Others v. Turkey, cited above).