Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GÖKTAS v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 66446/01

  The Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of the proceedings, it has taken account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close family members expressing their wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, among many others, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI and Latif Fuat Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 54673/00, § 27, 2 February 2006 and Mutlu v. Turkey, no. 8006/02, §§ 13-14, 10 October 2006).
• EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 54673/00

  LATIF FUAT ÖZTÜRK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 66446/01

  The Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of the proceedings, it has taken account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close family members expressing their wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, among many others, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI and Latif Fuat Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 54673/00, § 27, 2 February 2006 and Mutlu v. Turkey, no. 8006/02, §§ 13-14, 10 October 2006).
• EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 8006/02

  MUTLU v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 66446/01

  The Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of the proceedings, it has taken account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close family members expressing their wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, among many others, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI and Latif Fuat Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 54673/00, § 27, 2 February 2006 and Mutlu v. Turkey, no. 8006/02, §§ 13-14, 10 October 2006).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 66446/01

  According to the case-law, the latter are best placed to assess the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, amongst many authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 32; Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, § 34).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 66446/01

  According to the case-law, the latter are best placed to assess the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, amongst many authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 32; Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, § 34).

• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 24280/09

  BÜYÜKKOL v. TURKEY

  It reiterates that it is not a court of fourth instance and it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I; Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 49, ECHR 2001-II; and Göktas v. Turkey, no. 66446/01, §§ 32-34, 29 November 2007).
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 74022/01

  DJAVAKHADZE v. RUSSIA

  The domestic courts are best placed for assessing the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, amongst many authorities, Gurepka v. Ukraine, no. 61406/00, § 45, 6 September 2005 and Göktas v. Turkey, no. 66446/01, § 32, 29 November 2007).