Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AYETULLAH AY v. TURKEY

  Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Pecuniary damage ...

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 29084/07

  It therefore considers that given the circumstances of the instant case, the authenticity of those notes did not constitute an ancillary or insignificant issue (see Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, § 49 in fine, Series A no. 211, and Deryan v. Turkey, no. 41721/04, §§ 39-41, 21 July 2015).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 29084/07

  Furthermore, the scope of a case before the Court remains circumscribed by the facts, as presented by the applicant (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 123, ECHR 2018).
• EGMR, 09.05.2003 - 59506/00

  GEORGIOS PAPAGEORGIOU v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 29084/07

  Given these circumstances, the trial court's unqualified reliance on the police criminal laboratory's report gave rise to a situation in which its acceptance that the notes had been written by the applicant rested on an analysis of the photocopies of his writing samples, a situation which is capable of arousing doubts in the eyes of an objective observer (see Georgios Papageorgiou v. Greece, no. 59506/00, §§ 38-9, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts)).

• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 3324/19

  MEHMET ZEKI DOGAN v. TÜRKIYE (No. 2)

  There is also a distinction between the latter (that is to say, whether the rights of defence have been properly ensured in respect of the evidence taken) and the subsequent assessment of that evidence by the court once the proceedings have been concluded (see SA-Capital Oy v. Finland, no. 5556/10, § 74, 14 February 2019, and the references therein, and Ayetullah Ay v. Turkey, nos. 29084/07 and 1191/08, § 125, 27 October 2020).

  The Court's task under Article 6 of the Convention is not to pronounce on the probative value or sufficiency of evidence for a particular outcome, but to assess whether the overall fairness of the proceedings was ensured through the lens of the procedural and institutional safeguards and the fundamental principles of a fair trial inherent in Article 6 of the Convention (see Ayetullah Ay v. Turkey, nos. 29084/07 and 1191/08, § 194, 27 October 2020).

• EGMR, 12.03.2024 - 48309/17

  ORHAN SAHIN v. TÜRKIYE

  Accordingly, the finding of a violation in itself constitutes, in the specific circumstances of the present case, sufficient just satisfaction, given the possibility under Article 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to have the domestic proceedings reopened in the event that the Court finds a violation of the Convention (see Ayetullah Ay v. Turkey, nos. 29084/07 and 1191/08, § 203, 27 October 2020, and Yüksel Yalçinkaya v. Türkiye [GC], no. 15669/20, § 425, 26 September 2023).
• EGMR, 08.02.2024 - 3016/16

  BOGDAN v. UKRAINE

  In this context the Court reiterates its established case-law to the effect that any conversation between a detained criminal suspect and the police must be treated as formal contact and cannot be characterised as an informal interview or questioning (see Ayetullah Ay v. Turkey, nos. 29084/07 and 1191/08, § 137, 27 October 2020, with further references).

 
• EGMR, 19.09.2023 - 64144/14

  COSTA SANTOS c. PORTUGAL

  Du point de vue des droits de la défense, des questions peuvent se poser sur le terrain de l'article 6 relativement au point de savoir si les preuves, à charge comme à décharge, qui ont été administrées l'ont été d'une manière propre à assurer un procès équitable (Ayetullah Ay c. Turquie, nos 29084/07 et 1191/08, § 125, 27 octobre 2020, et références citées).
• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 76619/11

  ÇETINKAYA v. TÜRKIYE

  The Court's assessment 18. The general principles concerning the right to a reasoned judgment have been summarized in Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) ([GC], no. 19867/12, § 84, 11 July 2017) and in Ayetullah Ay v. Turkey, (nos. 29084/07 and 1191/08, § 128, 27 October 2020).
• EGMR, 25.11.2021 - 10917/15

  SASSI ET BENCHELLALI c. FRANCE

  En outre, une jurisprudence ancienne et bien établie de la Cour confirme plus généralement qu'il faut regarder au-delà des formalités, afin de s'assurer que les droits de la défense soient effectifs en pratique (voir, par exemple, Ayetullah Ay c. Turquie, nos 29084/07 et 1191/08, § 137, 27 octobre 2020, et Schmid-Laffer c. Suisse, no 41269/08, §§ 29-31, 16 juin 2015).
• EGMR, 13.06.2023 - 11343/16

  KAPLAN v. TÜRKIYE

  The general principles concerning the right to a reasoned judgment under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention may be found in Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) ([GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 83-84, 11 July 2017), Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) ([GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015), and Ayetullah Ay v. Turkey (nos. 29084/07 and 1191/08, § 128, 27 October 2020).
• EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 24219/16

  KARIMOV ET AUTRES c. AZERBAÏDJAN

  Dans le cadre de l'examen de l'équité d'une procédure pénale, la Cour a également estimé qu'en ne tenant aucun compte d'un point spécifique, pertinent et important soulevé par l'accusé, les juridictions internes avaient manqué aux obligations qui leur incombaient en vertu de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (Nechiporuk et Yonkalo c. Ukraine, no 42310/04, § 280, 21 avril 2011, et Ayetullah Ay c. Turquie, nos 29084/07 et 1191/08, § 127, 27 octobre 2020).