Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SELÇUK v. TURKEY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Wird zitiert von ... (24)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 21768/02

  The Court must then establish whether the other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continue to justify the deprivation of liberty (see, among other authorities, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 77, 26 July 2001, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 21768/02

  The Court also notes that although, in general, the expression "the state of evidence" may be a relevant factor for the existence and persistence of serious indications of guilt, in the present case it cannot alone justify the length of the detention of which the applicant complains (see Letellier, cited above; Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A; Mansur v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-B, § 55).
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 21768/02

  The Court must then establish whether the other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continue to justify the deprivation of liberty (see, among other authorities, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 77, 26 July 2001, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 21768/02

  Rn. 34 The Court reiterates in the first place that the danger of absconding cannot solely be assessed on the basis of the severity of the sentenced risked, but must be analysed with reference to a number of other relevant additional elements, which may either confirm the existence of such a danger or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify detention pending trial (see Muller v. France, judgment of 17 March 1997, Reports 1997 II, § 43; Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 43).
• EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 63993/00

  ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 21768/02

  As regards the danger posed to the public, this argument does not appear in itself a persuasive consideration in the circumstances of the present case (see Romanov v. Russia, no. 63993/00, § 94, 20 October 2005).
• EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 37444/97

  BAGINSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 21768/02

  Expectation of a heavy sentence and weight of evidence may be relevant but are not as such decisive and the possibility of obtaining guarantees may have to be used to offset any risk (see Baginski v. Poland, no. 37444/97, § 72, 11 October 2005).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 70337/01

  GÜVEÇ c. TURQUIE

  In at least three judgments concerning Turkey, the Court has expressed its misgivings about the practice of detaining children in pre-trial detention (see Selçuk v. Turkey, no. 21768/02, § 35, 10 January 2006; Kosti and Others v. Turkey, no. 74321/01, § 30, 3 May 2007; and Nart v. Turkey, cited above, § 34) and found violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention for considerably shorter periods than that spent by the applicant in the present case.
• EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05

  [ENG]

  Further, a very important factor in the balancing exercise is a defendant's age: thus, pre-trial detention of minors should be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible period (Selçuk v. Turkey, no. 21768/02, §§ 35-36, 10 January 2006, and Nart v. Turkey, no. 20817/04, §§ 31 and 33, 6 May 2008).
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 50255/12

  SÜVEGES v. HUNGARY

  As to the danger of repetition of offences, the Court reiterates that previous convictions could give a ground for a reasonable fear that the accused might commit a new offence (see Selçuk v. Turkey, no. 21768/02, § 64, 10 January 2006).

• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 42296/09

  KOVROV v. RUSSIA and 11 other applications

  In this respect, the Court reiterates that a very important factor to be taken into consideration is a defendant's age: thus, pre-trial detention of minors should be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible period (see Selçuk v. Turkey, no. 21768/02, §§ 35-36, 10 January 2006, and Nart v. Turkey, no.20817/04, §§ 31 and 33, 6 May 2008).
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 49651/06

  MEDENI UGUR c. TURQUIE

  La Cour rappelle que dans plusieurs affaires contre la Turquie, elle a exprimé son inquiétude face à la pratique consistant à placer des mineurs en détention provisoire et conclu à la violation de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention (Selçuk c. Turquie, no 21768/02, §§ 26-37, 10 janvier 2006, Güveç c. Turquie, no 70337/01, §§ 106-110, 29 janvier 2009, et Nart c. Turquie, no 20817/04, §§ 28-35, 6 mai 2008).
• EGMR, 23.06.2026 - 35454/19

  ÇETIN v. TÜRKIYE

  Furthermore, the pre-trial detention of minors should be used only as a measure of last resort and it should be as short as possible (see Selçuk v. Turkey, no. 21768/02, §§ 35-36, 10 January 2006, and Nart v. Turkey, no. 20817/04, §§ 31 and 33, 6 May 2008).
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 66066/09

  [FRE]

  La Cour rappelle avoir, dans plusieurs affaires contre la Turquie dans lesquelles elle a exprimé son inquiétude face à la pratique consistant à placer des mineurs en détention provisoire, conclu à la violation de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention (Selçuk c. Turquie, no 21768/02, §§ 26-37, 10 janvier 2006, Güveç c. Turquie, no 70337/01, §§ 106-110, CEDH 2009 (extraits), et Nart c. Turquie, no 20817/04, §§ 28-35, 6 mai 2008).
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

  KOSTI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Although, in general, the expression "the state of evidence" may be a relevant factor for the existence and persistence of serious indications of guilt, in the present case it nevertheless, alone, cannot justify a length of preventive detention of over two years and three months, in particular, having regard to the young age of the applicants (see, in particular, Selçuk v. Turkey, no. 21768/02, §§ 34-36, 10 January 2006, Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, Mansur v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-B, § 55).
• EGMR, 24.07.2007 - 48545/99

  MEHMET SAH ÇELIK v. TURKEY

  Although, in general, the expression "the state of evidence" may be a relevant factor for the existence and persistence of serious indications of guilt, in the present case it nevertheless, alone, cannot justify a length of preventive detention of almost four years (see, in particular, Selçuk v. Turkey, no. 21768/02, §§ 34-36, 10 January 2006 Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, Mansur v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-B, § 55).
• EGMR, 30.07.2015 - 50104/11

  LOISEL c. FRANCE

  Des condamnations antérieures peuvent fonder une crainte raisonnable que l'accusé commette une nouvelle infraction (Selçuk c. Turquie, no 21768/02, § 34, 10 janvier 2006).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 28053/10

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 06.05.2008 - 20817/04

  NART v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 4489/02

  SARACOGLU AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 19.12.2024 - 36989/21

  M.B. v. SLOVAKIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 60272/09

  RUPA AND TOMPI v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 6840/08

  MAHMUT ÖZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 23639/10

  FIKRI YAKAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 23601/10

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 23623/10

  TASÇI ET DEMIR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 34421/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 20817/04

  NART v. TURKEY
• EGMR - 25314/25 (anhängig)

  ILANSKA VENTSISLAVOVA v. CYPRUS and 1 other application
• EGMR, 22.01.2026 - 22083/21

  KONECNÁ v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 51157/10

  GABREA ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE