Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOCAMIS AND KURT v. TURKEY

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - ...

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 25253/08

  RUSEN BAYAR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 227/13

  The Court notes that similar complaints have already led to findings of violation under Article 5 § 4 in many cases against Turkey for failure to respect the principle of equality of arms (see, for example, Altinok, cited above, §§ 57-61; Çatal v. Turkey, no. 26808/08, § 44, 17 April 2012; Adem Serkan Gündogdu, cited above, § 49; and Rusen Bayar v. Turkey, no. 25253/08, §§ 73-74, 19 February 2019).

  Regarding the possibility of claiming compensation for those violations, the Court has already found that Article 141 of the CCP did not provide for the possibility of seeking compensation for damage suffered as a result of procedural deficiencies in the proceedings brought to challenge pre-trial detention (see Altinok, cited above, §§ 66-69; Hebat Aslan and Firas Aslan v. Turkey, no. 15048/09, § 93, 28 October 2014; and Rusen Bayar v. Turkey, no. 25253/08, § 82, 19 February 2019).

• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 26808/08

  ÇATAL v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 227/13

  It should be pointed out at the outset that the absence of a hearing here did not as such undermine the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings, insofar as none of the parties was invited to make oral submissions (see, for instance, Çatal v. Turkey, no. 26808/08, § 37, 17 April 2012).

  The Court notes that similar complaints have already led to findings of violation under Article 5 § 4 in many cases against Turkey for failure to respect the principle of equality of arms (see, for example, Altinok, cited above, §§ 57-61; Çatal v. Turkey, no. 26808/08, § 44, 17 April 2012; Adem Serkan Gündogdu, cited above, § 49; and Rusen Bayar v. Turkey, no. 25253/08, §§ 73-74, 19 February 2019).

• EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 31610/08

  ALTINOK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 227/13

  A description of the relevant domestic law and practice can be found in Altinok v. Turkey (no. 31610/08, §§ 28-32, 29 November 2011).

  In addition, against every decision concerning detention on remand, whether taken at the detainee's request or ex proprio motu, an objection can be lodged (see Altinok v. Turkey, no. 31610/08, § 53, 29 November 2011).

 
• EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 15048/09

  HEBAT ASLAN ET FIRAS ASLAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 227/13

  Regarding the possibility of claiming compensation for those violations, the Court has already found that Article 141 of the CCP did not provide for the possibility of seeking compensation for damage suffered as a result of procedural deficiencies in the proceedings brought to challenge pre-trial detention (see Altinok, cited above, §§ 66-69; Hebat Aslan and Firas Aslan v. Turkey, no. 15048/09, § 93, 28 October 2014; and Rusen Bayar v. Turkey, no. 25253/08, § 82, 19 February 2019).
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 22429/07

  PARMAK AND BAKIR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 227/13

  In these circumstances, the Court makes no award in respect of the costs and expenses claimed by the applicants (see, for instance, Parmak and Bakir v. Turkey, nos. 22429/07 and 25195/07, § 108, 3 December 2019).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 227/13

  Moreover, where a person's detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), such as in the present case, a hearing is required (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 161, 22 May 2012, and Knebl v. the Czech Republic, no. 20157/05, § 81, 28 October 2010).
• EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 59860/10

  ÖNER AKTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 227/13

  The Court has found similar or longer periods to be acceptable in the context of challenges brought against detention at the trial stage, on the ground that at that stage of the proceedings, the detainees in question had the opportunity to appear regularly before the trial court and to contest the lawfulness of their detention in person at each hearing (see, for instance, Öner Aktas v. Turkey, no. 59860/10, § 47, 29 October 2013, and Ali Riza Kaplan v. Turkey, no. 24597/08, §§ 30 and 31, 13 November 2014, where the periods concerned were one month and six days and one month and eighteen days, respectively; see also, by contrast, Mahmut Öz v. Turkey, no. 6840/08, § 45, 3 July 2012, where non-appearance before a judge at the trial stage for more than three months led to a violation of Article 5 § 4).
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 58271/10

  A.S. c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 227/13

  The Government also argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust the compensation remedy under Article 141 of the CCP in respect of their complaints under Article 5 of the Convention, which the Court had declared to be effective in its judgment of A.S. v. Turkey (no. 58271/10, §§ 92-95, 13 September 2016).
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 10755/13

  UZUN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 227/13

  Accordingly, and in the absence of any further explanation by the Government, the remedy in question fell outside the Constitutional Court's temporal jurisdiction (see, for instance, Uzun v. Turkey (dec.), no. 10755/13, §§ 25 and 34, 30 April 2013).
• EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 6670/10

  ÇELIK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 227/13

  In a case similarly straddling the investigation and trial stages, a sixteen-day period of non-appearance before a judge to challenge the lawfulness of detention was not considered to fall foul of the requirements Article 5 § 4 (see the Committee judgment in the case of Çelik v. Turkey, no. 6670/10, § 18, 17 March 2015).
• EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 66448/17

  EGMR verurteilt Türkei: Haft von Ex-Richter verstößt gegen Menschenrechte
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 24597/08

  ALI RIZA KAPLAN c. TURQUIE
• EuGH, 09.02.2006 - C-23/04

  Sfakianakis - Assoziierungsabkommen EWG-Ungarn - Verpflichtung der Zollbehörden, …
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 6840/08

  MAHMUT ÖZ c. TURQUIE

• BVerfG, 14.07.2020 - 2 BvR 1163/16

  Nichtannahmebeschluss: Parallelentscheidung

  Der österreichische Oberste Gerichtshof (OGH) entschied zwar zunächst, dass der Klage eines Anlegers, der über eine österreichische Depotbank griechische Staatsanleihen erworben hatte und aus diesen Erfüllungsansprüche geltend machte, der Einwand der Staatenimmunität nicht entgegenstehen könne (vgl. OGH, Beschlüsse vom 20. Mai 2014 - 4 Ob 227/13f - vom 30. Juli 2015 - 8 Ob 67/15h - vom 31. August 2015 - 6 Ob 122/15g - und vom 25. November 2015 - 8 Ob 125/14p -).
• BVerfG, 27.10.2020 - 2 BvR 558/19

  Nichtannahmebeschluss: Parallelentscheidung

  cc) Zwar hat der österreichische Oberste Gerichtshof (OGH) zunächst entschieden, dass der Klage eines Anlegers, der über eine österreichische Depotbank griechische Staatsanleihen erworben und der Erfüllungsansprüche geltend gemacht hatte, der Einwand der Staatenimmunität nicht entgegengehalten werden könne (vgl. OGH, Beschlüsse vom 20. Mai 2014 - 4 Ob 227/13f - vom 30. Juli 2015 - 8 Ob 67/15h - vom 31. August 2015 - 6 Ob 122/15g - und vom 25. November 2015 - 8 Ob 125/14p -).
• BVerfG, 09.11.2020 - 2 BvR 1047/18

  Nichtannahmebeschluss: Parallelentscheidung

  Der österreichische Oberste Gerichtshof (OGH) entschied zwar zunächst, dass der Klage eines Anlegers, der über eine österreichische Depotbank griechische Staatsanleihen erworben hatte und aus diesen Erfüllungsansprüche geltend machte, der Einwand der Staatenimmunität nicht entgegenstehen könne (vgl. OGH, Beschlüsse vom 20. Mai 2014 - 4 Ob 227/13f - vom 30. Juli 2015 - 8 Ob 67/15h - vom 31. August 2015 - 6 Ob 122/15g - und vom 25. November 2015 - 8 Ob 125/14p -).