Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DBOUBA v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (in case of expulsion to Tunisia) Violation of Art. 13 Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-2 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-5 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 15916/09

  The Court further considers, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, to its finding of a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and to the urgent need to put an end to that violation, that the respondent State must secure the applicant's release at the earliest possible date (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, §§ 201-203, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 25904/07

  Sri Lanka, Tamilen, Europäischer Menschenrechtsgerichtshof, menschenrechtswidrige …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 15916/09

  v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, § 122; Abdolkhani and Karimnia, cited above, § 82).
• EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 15916/09

  It considers that this fact in itself meant that the applicant's right of appeal against his detention was deprived of all effective substance (see Abdolkhani and Karimnia, cited above, § 141; Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 432, ECHR 2005-III).
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 15916/09

  A description of the relevant domestic law and practice can be found in the case of Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey (no. 30471/08, §§ 29-44, 22 September 2009).
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 21896/08

  Türkei, Iran, Konvertiten, religiöse Verfolgung, Abschiebungshaft

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 15916/09

  In so far as the applicant's allegations concern the detention conditions in the Kırklareli Foreigners' Admission and Accommodation Centre, where the applicant is currently being held, the Court notes that it has already examined almost identical allegations and found that the material conditions in that centre were not so severe as to bring them within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Z.N.S. v. Turkey, no. 21896/08, §§ 79-87, 19 January 2010).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 16483/12

  Lampedusa-Haft war illegal

  In cases where detainees had not been informed of the reasons for their deprivation of liberty, the Court has found that their right to appeal against their detention was deprived of all effective substance (see, in particular, Shamayev and Others, cited above, § 432; Abdolkhani and Karimnia, cited above, § 141; Dbouba v. Turkey, no. 15916/09, § 54, 13 July 2010; and Musaev v. Turkey, no. 72754/11, § 40, 21 October 2014).
• EGMR, 28.02.2019 - 19951/16

  Herabsetzende Behandlung junger Flüchtlinge: Griechenland verurteilt

  La Cour rappelle que, dans des affaires où des détenus n'avaient pas été informés des raisons justifiant leur privation de liberté, elle a jugé que le droit des intéressés d'introduire un recours contre la détention litigieuse s'était trouvé vidé de son contenu (voir, notamment, Khlaifia et autres c. Italie [GC], no 16483/12, § 132, 15 décembre 2016, Musaev c. Turquie, no 72754/11, § 40, 21 octobre 2014, Dbouba c. Turquie, no 15916/09, § 54, 13 juillet 2010, Abdolkhani et Karimnia c. Turquie, no 0471/08, § 141, 22 septembre 2009, et Chamaïev et autres, précité, § 432).
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 47146/11

  [ENG]

  It considers that this fact in itself meant that the applicant's right of appeal against her detention under Article 5 § 4 was deprived of all effective substance (see Abdolkhani and Karimnia, cited above, § 141, and Dbouba v. Turkey, no. 15916/09, § 54, 13 July 2010).

• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 72710/11

  YARASHONEN v. TURKEY

  Nevertheless, neither the record of the interview dated 26 October 2010, nor any other documents submitted by the Government show that he had been notified of the reasons for his detention at the airport police station or subsequently at the Kumkapı Removal Centre (see Dbouba v. Turkey, no. 15916/09, § 52, 13 July 2010).
• EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 22681/09

  [ENG]

  The Court will not consider whether any fault could be attributed to the applicants for the procedural shortcomings noted by the Istanbul Administrative Court or whether they should have proceeded with the proceedings notwithstanding their lack of access to certain documents, because, for the reasons set out below, it considers the remedy in question to be ineffective in the circumstances (see, mutatis mutandis, Abdolkhani and Karimnia, cited above, § 141, and Dbouba v. Turkey, no. 15916/09, § 54, 13 July 2010).
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 43875/09

  [ENG]

  Having regard to its above findings, and in the absence of any examples provided by the Government of cases where proceedings pursued under Article 125 of the Constitution resulted in the granting of compensation for unlawful detention pending deportation proceedings, the Court concludes that the applicant did not have an enforceable right to compensation within the meaning of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see Dbouba v. Turkey, no. 15916/09, § 55, 13 July 2010).
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 14344/13

  ALIMOV v. TURKEY

  The Court notes that it has found a violation of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention in the past in a number of similar cases where it concluded that the Turkish legal system at the material time did not provide persons in the applicant's position with a remedy whereby they could obtain judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention, within the meaning of Article 5 § 4, and receive compensation for their unlawful detention, as required under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see Abdolkhani and Karimnia, cited above, § 142; Tehrani and Others v. Turkey, nos. 32940/08, 41626/08 and 43616/08, § 79, 13 April 2010; and Dbouba v. Turkey, no. 15916/09, §§ 53-54, 13 July 2010).
• EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 37289/12

  J.N. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  See, for example six cases against Turkey, namely Abdolkhani and Karimnia v Turkey (Application No 30471/08) (unreported) given 22 September 2009, para 135, applied in ZNS v Turkey (Application No 21896/08) (unreported) given 19 January 2010, para 56; Tehrani v Turkey (Application Nos 32940/08, 41626/08 and 43616/08) (unreported) given 13 April 2010, para 70; Charahili v Turkey (Application No 46605/07) (unreported) given 13 April 2010, para 66; Alipour and Hosseinzadgan v Turkey (Application Nos 6909/08, 12792/08 and 28960/08) (unreported) given 13 July 2010, para 57; and Dbouba v Turkey (Application No 15916/09) (unreported) given 13 July 2010, para 50.
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 16026/12

  AMERKHANOV v. TURKEY

  The Court notes that it has found a violation of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention in the past in a number of similar cases, where it concluded that the Turkish legal system did not provide persons in the applicant's position with a remedy whereby they could obtain judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention, within the meaning of Article 5 § 4, and receive compensation for their unlawful detention, as required under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see Tehrani and Others v. Turkey, nos. 32940/08, 41626/08 and 43616/08, § 79, 13 April 2010; Abdolkhani and Karimnia, cited above, § 142; Dbouba v. Turkey, no. 15916/09, §§ 53-54, 13 July 2010; Yarashonen, cited above, § 48; Musaev, cited above, § 39; and Alimov v. Turkey, no. 14344/13, § 50, 6 September 2016).
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 69929/12

  BATYRKHAIROV v. TURKEY

  The Court notes that it has found a violation of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention in the past in a number of similar cases, where it concluded that the Turkish legal system did not provide persons in the applicant's position with a remedy whereby they could obtain judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention, within the meaning of Article 5 § 4, and receive compensation for their unlawful detention, as required under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see Tehrani and Others v. Turkey, nos. 32940/08, 41626/08 and 43616/08, § 79, 13 April 2010; Abdolkhani and Karimnia, cited above, § 142; Dbouba v. Turkey, no. 15916/09, §§ 53-54, 13 July 2010; Yarashonen, cited above, § 48; Musaev v. Turkey, no. 72754/11, § 39, 21 October 2014; and Alimov v. Turkey, no. 14344/13, § 50, 6 September 2016).
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 72754/11

  MUSAEV v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 30518/11

  ALIEV v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.11.2025 - 36916/19

  M.A. v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 30352/09

  [FRE]