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 ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• 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, 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

  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, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  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, 09.07.2013 - 66066/09

  DINÇ ET ÇAKIR c. TURQUIE

  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, 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

  BILAL DOGAN 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 enfants 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, Nart c. Turquie, no 20817/04, §§ 28-35, 6 mai 2008, Tasçı et Demir c. Turquie, no 23623/10, §§ 30-37, 3 mai 2012, et Fikri Yakar c. Turquie, no 23639/10, §§ 41-48, 22 mai 2012).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 23601/10

  TURGUT ÖZKAN 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 enfants 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, 13.11.2012 - 34421/09

  J.M. v. DENMARK

  The present case is also distinguishable from the Court's case-law, where the authorities did not take the young offender's age into consideration when ordering their detention (see, for example, Güveç v. Turkey, no. 70337/01, §§ 109-110, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)); Nart v. Turkey, no. 20817/04, 6 May 2008; and Selçuk v. Turkey, no. 21768/02, 10 January 2006).