Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FAZLI KAYA v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Fazli Kaya v. Turkey

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 24820/05
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 24820/05

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 7377/03

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 24820/05

  The Court observes at the outset that, at the material time, the restriction imposed on the applicant's right to legal assistance was systemic and applied to anyone held in custody in connection with an offence falling within the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts (see Salduz, cited above, §§ 56-63; Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, § 30-34, 13 October 2009).
• EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 35292/05

  SAMAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 24820/05

  Taking into account the awards made in comparable cases (see Saman v. Turkey, no. 35292/05, § 45, 5 April 2011; Gürova v. Turkey, no. 22088/03, § 21, 6 October 2009; Salduz, cited above, § 79), the Court finds it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 1, 000 under this head.
• EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 35070/97

  TEZCAN UZUNHASANOGLU v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 24820/05

  Having regard to its finding above and referring to paragraph 31 below, the Court, without taking a position on the remaining complaint raised by the applicant regarding the fairness of the proceedings, considers that it is unnecessary to examine it (see Geçgel and Çelik v. Turkey, nos. 8747/02 and 34509/03, § 16, 13 October 2009, Tezcan UzunhasanoÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 35070/97, § 23, 20 April 2004).

• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 8747/02

  GEÇGEL AND ÇELIK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 24820/05

  Having regard to its finding above and referring to paragraph 31 below, the Court, without taking a position on the remaining complaint raised by the applicant regarding the fairness of the proceedings, considers that it is unnecessary to examine it (see Geçgel and Çelik v. Turkey, nos. 8747/02 and 34509/03, § 16, 13 October 2009, Tezcan UzunhasanoÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 35070/97, § 23, 20 April 2004).
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 22088/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 24820/05

  Taking into account the awards made in comparable cases (see Saman v. Turkey, no. 35292/05, § 45, 5 April 2011; Gürova v. Turkey, no. 22088/03, § 21, 6 October 2009; Salduz, cited above, § 79), the Court finds it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 1, 000 under this head.
• EGMR, 04.09.2003 - 45358/99

  OKUL contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 24820/05

  It reiterates that where an applicant is not entitled to be served ex officio with a written copy of the final domestic decision and if he or she was represented by a lawyer during the domestic proceedings, as in the present case, the date on which the final domestic decision was deposited with the registry of the first-instance court should be taken as the starting-point under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, being the latest date by which the applicant or his or her representative was definitively able to find out about the content of the final decision (see Ä°pek v. Turkey (dec.), no. 39706/98, 7 November 2000, Okul v. Turkey (dec.), no. 45358/99, 4 September 2003).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 37537/13

  BORG v. MALTA

  A systemic restriction of this kind, based on the relevant statutory provisions, was sufficient in itself for the Court to find a violation of Article 6 (see, for example, Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03 §§ 31-33, 13 October 2009; Yeşilkaya v. Turkey, no. 59780/00, 8 December 2009; and Fazli Kaya v. Turkey, no. 24820/05, 17 September 2013).
• EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 34373/13

  DIMECH v. MALTA

  A systemic restriction of this kind, based on the relevant statutory provisions, was sufficient in itself for the Court to find a violation of Article 6 (see, for example, Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03 §§ 31-33, 13 October 2009; Yesilkaya v. Turkey, no. 59780/00, 8 December 2009; and Fazli Kaya v. Turkey, no. 24820/05, 17 September 2013).
• EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 31535/04

  [ENG]

  Having regard to its findings above and referring to paragraph 36 below, the Court, without taking a position on the remaining complaint raised by the applicant regarding the fairness of the proceedings, considers that it is unnecessary to examine it (see Geçgel and Çelik v. Turkey, nos. 8747/02 and 34509/03, § 16, 13 October 2009; Hikmet Yılmaz v. Turkey, no. 11022/05, § 24, 4 June 2013; and Fazlı Kaya v. Turkey, no. 24820/05, § 27, 17 September 2013).