Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AYDIN ÇETINKAYA v. TURKEY

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CETINKAYA v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (24)Zitiert selbst (19)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10

  Urteil gegen Türkei wegen Online-Zensur

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

  In view of its finding of a violation under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the use by the trial court of police statements allegedly obtained from the applicant through ill-treatment (see paragraph 108 above) and referring to paragraph 119 below, the Court deems it unnecessary to rule separately on either the admissibility or the merits of the present complaint (see Özcan Çolak cited above, § 53; Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 72, ECHR 2012; and Bayram Güçlü v. Turkey, no. 31535/04, § 27, 18 February 2014).
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 30235/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

  In sum, the Court finds that the procedural safeguards provided in the present case did not operate to prevent the use of the statements allegedly obtained as a result of ill-treatment in the criminal proceedings against the applicant and thus that the use of those statements, although not necessarily decisive, in convicting the applicant rendered his trial as a whole unfair (see Örs and Others, cited above, § 61; and Özcan Çolak v. Turkey, no. 30235/03, § 49, 6 October 2009).
• EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 31535/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

  In view of its finding of a violation under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the use by the trial court of police statements allegedly obtained from the applicant through ill-treatment (see paragraph 108 above) and referring to paragraph 119 below, the Court deems it unnecessary to rule separately on either the admissibility or the merits of the present complaint (see Özcan Çolak cited above, § 53; Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 72, ECHR 2012; and Bayram Güçlü v. Turkey, no. 31535/04, § 27, 18 February 2014).

• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

  While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, this being primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 94, ECHR 2006-IX; and Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 162, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84

  FUNKE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

  The Court further reiterates that although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention, there can be no doubt that the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6 (see Funke v. France, 25 February 1993, § 44, Series A no. 256-A, and John Murray v. the United Kingdom, 8 February 1996, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

  As a result, the Court considered that the applicants should be deemed to have complied with the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies (see, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 108, ECHR 2000-VII ; Suna Parlak, Rahime Aktürk et Hatice Tay v. Turkey (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

  GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

  10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, § 220, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) [GC], no. 42219/07, § 83, 9 July 2015).
• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

  10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, § 220, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) [GC], no. 42219/07, § 83, 9 July 2015).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 5260/07

  FETI DEMIRTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

  25060/02 and 1705/03, § 66, 2 December 2008; and Feti Demirtaş v. Turkey, no. 5260/07, § 82, 17 January 2012).
• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 35811/97

  KOLU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

  Although the applicant had pleaded in his defence that he had been subjected to ill-treatment whilst giving the police statements, the State Security Court, when convicting the applicant, repeatedly referred to the "content of the case-file as a whole" in its reasoning (see paragraph 56 above), not excluding in any way these statements allegedly obtained by ill-treatment, despite the fact that Turkish law does not usually attach consequences to any confessions obtained during questioning but later denied in court and which are decisive for the prospects of the defence (see Kolu v. Turkey, no. 35811/97, § 60, 2 August 2005; Örs and Others, cited above, § 59; Baran and Hun v. Turkey, no. 30685/05, § 70, 20 May 2010).
• EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 46661/99

  SÖYLEMEZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 72194/01

  DOGANc. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 29835/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 25060/02

  ERDAL ASLAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 24.02.2015 - 36812/07

  YAMAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 35044/97

  HASAN KILIC c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 15750/02

  UYAN c. TURQUIE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 30685/05

  BARAN AND HUN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 21790/04

  [FRE]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 53567/07

  [ENG]

  The Court reiterates that within the context of Turkish law, lodging a formal complaint with the public prosecutor's office and, where appropriate, filing an objection against a decision not to prosecute, would be sufficient to fulfil the requirements of Article 35 of the Convention (see Aydın Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 84, 2 February 2016 with further references therein; and compare Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 56-57, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI).

  It further considers that the most appropriate form of redress would be a retrial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, should the applicant so request (see Aydın Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 119, 2 February 2016).

• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 38740/09

  DUMAN v. TURKEY

  However, the Court reiterates that the absence of an admissible Article 3 complaint does not, in principle, preclude the Court from taking into consideration the applicant's allegations that the police statements had been obtained using methods of coercion or oppression and that their admission to the case file, relied upon by the trial court, therefore constituted a violation of the fair trial guarantee of Article 6 (see Aydın Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 104, 2 February 2016).
• EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 29084/07

  AYETULLAH AY v. TURKEY

  In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 5, 500, covering costs for the proceedings before the Court (see Aydın Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 122, 2 February 2016).

• EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 7851/05

  [FRE]

  It further considers that the most appropriate form of redress would be a retrial of the applicants in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, should they so request (see Aydın Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 119, 2 February 2016).
• EGMR, 26.01.2021 - 73313/17

  ZLICIC v. SERBIA

  Indeed, even the absence of an admissible Article 3 complaint does not, in principle, preclude the Court from taking into consideration an applicant's allegations that the statements made before the police had been obtained using methods of coercion or oppression and that their admission to the case file, relied upon by the trial court, therefore constituted a violation of the fair trial guarantee of Article 6 (see Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, § 42, 23 October 2018, and Aydın Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 104, 2 February 2016).
• EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 2991/06

  BELUGIN v. RUSSIA

  Consequently, even in the absence of an admissible Article 3 complaint, the Court is not precluded from taking into consideration allegations of ill-treatment for the purposes of deciding on compliance with the guarantees of Article 6 (see Aydın Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 104, 2 February 2016, and Kolu v. Turkey, no. 35811/97, § 54, 2 August 2005).
• EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 4261/06

  KUDAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  However, the Court reiterates that even in the absence of an admissible Article 3 complaint, it is not precluded from taking into consideration allegations of ill-treatment for the purposes of deciding on compliance with the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention (see Aydın Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 104, 2 February 2016).
• EGMR, 11.12.2019 - 35811/97

  KOLU AGAINST TURKEY AND 12 OTHER CASES

  2082/05.
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 46661/09

  [ENG]

  It further considers that the most appropriate form of redress would be the retrial of the applicant in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, should he so request (see Aydın Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 119, 2 February 2016).
• EGMR, 21.04.2026 - 21325/19

  Y.F.C. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Even if, in general the applicants could have been expected to use domestic remedies, and those would have been effective, special circumstances absolved them from relying on these remedies given that they were made to feel "vulnerable, powerless and apprehensive of the representatives of the State" (they relied on Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 56, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI) and they therefore "formed the belief that they could not hope to secure concern and satisfaction through national legal channels" (they relied on Aydın Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 83, 2 February 2016).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 13128/06

  URAZBAYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 6739/11

  BOKHONKO v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 27.04.2023 - 20216/14

  DURSUN ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 31231/06

  LYUPAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.06.2023 - 60237/11

  TUNCER AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 78510/11

  OKUYUCU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 16896/11

  ILISAL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 1399/07

  MEHMET ALI ESER v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 09.07.2019 - 38176/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR - 53446/20 (anhängig)

  KUS v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 7155/12

  YESIL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 48555/08

  ATAY v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 63566/12

  AKBAS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 48719/08

  SIMSEK v. TURKEY