Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  UYANIK v. TURKEY

  Struck out of the list (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  UYANiK v. TURKEY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 72000/01

  GÖÇMEN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 5592/10

  In that connection, the Court deems it important to reiterate its well established case-law where it has found in respect of confessions, as such, that the admission of statements obtained as a result of torture (compare Örs and Others v. Turkey, no.46213/99, § 60, 20 June 2006; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, §§ 63, 64 and 66, ECHR 2007-III, and Levin?17332/03, §§ 101 and 104-05, 16 December 2008) or of other ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 (compare Söylemez v. Turkey, no. 46661/99, §§ 107 and 122-24, 21 September 2006, and Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006) as evidence to establish the relevant facts in criminal proceedings rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 166, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03

  SULWINSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 5592/10

  To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwi??ska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 17332/03

  LEVINTA v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 5592/10

  In that connection, the Court deems it important to reiterate its well established case-law where it has found in respect of confessions, as such, that the admission of statements obtained as a result of torture (compare Örs and Others v. Turkey, no.46213/99, § 60, 20 June 2006; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, §§ 63, 64 and 66, ECHR 2007-III, and Levin?17332/03, §§ 101 and 104-05, 16 December 2008) or of other ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 (compare Söylemez v. Turkey, no. 46661/99, §§ 107 and 122-24, 21 September 2006, and Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006) as evidence to establish the relevant facts in criminal proceedings rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 166, ECHR 2010).

 
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 36549/03

  Recht auf ein faires Strafverfahren (Beweisverwertungsverbot; Verwertungsverbot …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 5592/10

  In that connection, the Court deems it important to reiterate its well established case-law where it has found in respect of confessions, as such, that the admission of statements obtained as a result of torture (compare Örs and Others v. Turkey, no.46213/99, § 60, 20 June 2006; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, §§ 63, 64 and 66, ECHR 2007-III, and Levin?17332/03, §§ 101 and 104-05, 16 December 2008) or of other ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 (compare Söylemez v. Turkey, no. 46661/99, §§ 107 and 122-24, 21 September 2006, and Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006) as evidence to establish the relevant facts in criminal proceedings rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 166, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 14416/06

  Russland muss gefoltertem Mann 50.000 Euro Entschädigung zahlen

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 5592/10

  As a result, regardless of the probative value of statements obtained under duress and the impact it had on the outcome of the criminal proceedings their use as evidence renders the trial unfair (see Sergey Ivanov v. Russia, no. 14416/06, §§ 90-1, 15 May 2018).
• EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 46661/99

  SÖYLEMEZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 5592/10

  In that connection, the Court deems it important to reiterate its well established case-law where it has found in respect of confessions, as such, that the admission of statements obtained as a result of torture (compare Örs and Others v. Turkey, no.46213/99, § 60, 20 June 2006; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, §§ 63, 64 and 66, ECHR 2007-III, and Levin?17332/03, §§ 101 and 104-05, 16 December 2008) or of other ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 (compare Söylemez v. Turkey, no. 46661/99, §§ 107 and 122-24, 21 September 2006, and Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006) as evidence to establish the relevant facts in criminal proceedings rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 166, ECHR 2010).