Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×
Weiteres Verfahren unten: EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 29084/07, 1191/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2020,32290
EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 29084/07, 1191/08 (https://dejure.org/2020,32290)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27.10.2020 - 29084/07, 1191/08 (https://dejure.org/2020,32290)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27. Oktober 2020 - 29084/07, 1191/08 (https://dejure.org/2020,32290)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2020,32290) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    AYETULLAH AY v. TURKEY

    Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Pecuniary damage ...

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (47)Zitiert selbst (29)

  • EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

    Brandstetter ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 29084/07
    It therefore considers that given the circumstances of the instant case, the authenticity of those notes did not constitute an ancillary or insignificant issue (see Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, § 49 in fine, Series A no. 211, and Deryan v. Turkey, no. 41721/04, §§ 39-41, 21 July 2015).
  • EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 35485/05

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 29084/07
    Subsequently, in its judgment the trial court stated, without giving any reasons, that according to the police criminal laboratory's report, the notes had been written by the applicant (see Huseyn and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 35485/05 and 3 others, § 172, 26 July 2011, and compare Krasulya v. Russia, no. 12365/03, § 49, 22 February 2007).
  • EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 14704/12

    KIRDÖK AND HANBAYAT v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 29084/07
    Be that as it may, the Court considers that such generic reasoning on the part of the national courts is not sufficient, regard being had to the applicant's specific and pertinent objection related to the legality of the house search (see, mutatis mutandis, Kırdök and others v. Turkey, no. 14704/12, § 53, 3 December 2019).
  • EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 40448/06

    AYDOGDU c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 29084/07
    Nevertheless, it appears that the trial court did not sufficiently allay that concern by taking the necessary steps; notably, it failed to state the reasons on the basis of which it had opted not to comply with the Forensic Medicine Institute's request for (i) the originals of the handwriting samples that the applicant had given during his time in custody, (ii) further documents containing examples of his handwriting, and (iii) a rewritten version of the applicant's above-mentioned notes, with a view to resolving the forensic question in a scientific manner before the trial court assessed the authenticity and veracity of the notes alleged to have been written by the applicant and on which the trial court eventually relied when convicting him (see, mutatis mutandis, Erdinç Kurt and Others v. Turkey, no. 50772/11, § 69, 6 June 2017; see also, for the important role played by the Forensic Medicine Institute in Turkish law, Aydoğdu v. Turkey, no. 40448/06, § 45, 30 August 2016).
  • EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 50772/11

    KURT v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 29084/07
    Nevertheless, it appears that the trial court did not sufficiently allay that concern by taking the necessary steps; notably, it failed to state the reasons on the basis of which it had opted not to comply with the Forensic Medicine Institute's request for (i) the originals of the handwriting samples that the applicant had given during his time in custody, (ii) further documents containing examples of his handwriting, and (iii) a rewritten version of the applicant's above-mentioned notes, with a view to resolving the forensic question in a scientific manner before the trial court assessed the authenticity and veracity of the notes alleged to have been written by the applicant and on which the trial court eventually relied when convicting him (see, mutatis mutandis, Erdinç Kurt and Others v. Turkey, no. 50772/11, § 69, 6 June 2017; see also, for the important role played by the Forensic Medicine Institute in Turkish law, Aydoğdu v. Turkey, no. 40448/06, § 45, 30 August 2016).
  • EGMR, 10.04.2014 - 22062/07

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 29084/07
    In view of the above, it appears that the only possible safeguard against abuse was the video recording and photographing of the search (see Layijov v. Azerbaijan, no. 22062/07, § 69 in fine, 10 April 2014, and Lisica, cited above, § 56).
  • EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

    CETINKAYA v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 29084/07
    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, 09.05.2003 - 59506/00

    GEORGIOS PAPAGEORGIOU v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 29084/07
    Given these circumstances, the trial court's unqualified reliance on the police criminal laboratory's report gave rise to a situation in which its acceptance that the notes had been written by the applicant rested on an analysis of the photocopies of his writing samples, a situation which is capable of arousing doubts in the eyes of an objective observer (see Georgios Papageorgiou v. Greece, no. 59506/00, §§ 38-9, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 37272/08

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 29084/07
    It furthermore considers that given the circumstances of the instant case, the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction, given the possibility under Article 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to have the domestic proceedings reopened in the event that the Court finds a violation of the Convention (see Daştan v. Turkey, no. 37272/08, § 44, 10 October 2017).
  • EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 41721/04

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 29084/07
    It therefore considers that given the circumstances of the instant case, the authenticity of those notes did not constitute an ancillary or insignificant issue (see Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, § 49 in fine, Series A no. 211, and Deryan v. Turkey, no. 41721/04, §§ 39-41, 21 July 2015).
  • EGMR, 08.11.2018 - 13185/07

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 28.04.2015 - 36001/06

    GALIP DOGRU c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 9762/03

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 18704/05

    LEE DAVIES c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 27.10.2016 - 27866/10

    TER-SARGSYAN v. ARMENIA

  • EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 30743/09

    KUPARADZE v. GEORGIA

  • EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 47081/06

    M.T.B. v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 12365/03

    KRASULYA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 29.06.2010 - 12976/05

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 15685/11

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04
  • EKMR, 08.07.1978 - 7572/76

    ENSSLIN, BAADER and RASPE v. GERMANY

  • EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02

    PAVLENKO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 22429/07

    PARMAK v. TURKEY and 1 other application

  • EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 23610/03

    MELNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 51164/07

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 14.03.2019 - 36416/06

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 5839/09

    ÖZTUNÇ v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 15669/20

    YALÇINKAYA v. TURKEY

    29084/07 and 1191/08, § 127 and 195, 27 October 2020; and Pişkin, cited above, §§ 147, 149 and 151).
  • EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 3324/19

    DOGAN v. TURKEY

    There is also a distinction between the latter (that is to say, whether the rights of defence have been properly ensured in respect of the evidence taken) and the subsequent assessment of that evidence by the court once the proceedings have been concluded (see SA-Capital Oy v. Finland, no. 5556/10, § 74, 14 February 2019, and the references therein, and Ayetullah Ay v. Turkey, nos. 29084/07 and 1191/08, § 125, 27 October 2020).

    Rn. 9 The Court's task under Article 6 of the Convention is not to pronounce on the probative value or sufficiency of evidence for a particular outcome, but to assess whether the overall fairness of the proceedings was ensured through the lens of the procedural and institutional safeguards and the fundamental principles of a fair trial inherent in Article 6 of the Convention (see Ayetullah Ay v. Turkey, nos. 29084/07 and 1191/08, § 194, 27 October 2020).

  • EGMR, 20.10.2026 - 33372/19

    GÜR v. TURKEY

    Rn. 41 The general principles concerning the right to a reasoned judgment under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention may be found in Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) ([GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 83-84, 11 July 2017), Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) ([GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015) and Ayetullah Ay v. Turkey (nos. 29084/07 and 1191/08, § 128, 27 October 2020).

    That being said, and bearing in mind that Article 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for the reopening of the domestic proceedings in the event that the Court finds a violation of the Convention, the Court 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 Ayetullah Ay v. Turkey, nos. 29084/07 and 1191/08, § 203, 27 October 2020).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR - 1191/08, 29084/07   

Anhängiges Verfahren
Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/9999,65445
EGMR - 1191/08, 29084/07 (https://dejure.org/9999,65445)
EGMR - 1191/08, Entscheidung vom 29084/07 (https://dejure.org/9999,65445)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/9999,65445) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

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

  • EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 29084/07

    AYETULLAH AY v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR - 1191/08
    29084/07 and 1191/08 Ayetullah AY against Turkey lodged on 27 June 2007 and 13 December 2007 respectively.

    Complaints under application no. 29084/07.

  • BVerfG, 09.09.2010 - 1 BvR 2005/10

    Nichtannahmebeschluss: Verfassungsmäßigkeit des Rechnungsabschlags gem § 8 Abs 9 …

    Auszug aus EGMR - 1191/08
    On 19 January 2006 the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor filed another indictment against the applicant with the Diyarbakır Assize Court (case no. 2006/10 E.) in connection with the notes found on him in the prison and the material seized from his apartment in the ensuing house search.
  • EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 7377/03

    [FRE]

    Auszug aus EGMR - 1191/08
    Did the absence of legal assistance to the applicant during his police custody in Istanbul, and particularly during the search of his house on 29 October 2004, constitute a breach of his rights under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (see Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, §§ 31-32, 13 October 2009)?.
  • EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 60439/12

    ZIROVNICKÝ c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

    La Cour observe dans ce contexte que, à la lumière de l'arrêt no II. ÚS 1191/08 adopté par la Cour constitutionnelle le 14 avril 2009 (cité dans la décision Bureš précitée), les justiciables devraient dorénavant plutôt se prévaloir, lorsqu'il s'agit de leur relation verticale avec l'État, de la voie offerte par la loi no 82/1998.
  • EGMR, 13.10.2016 - 62507/12

    CERVENKA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

    The Government emphasised that the Constitutional Court had constantly allowed legally incapacitated persons to resort to it independently and had not dismissed their constitutional appeals on the grounds that they had not been entitled to lodge them (they referred to ÚS 412/04 of 7 December 2003; II. ÚS 303/05 of 13 September 2007; II. ÚS 2630/07 of 13 December 2007; and II. ÚS 1191/08 of 14 April 2009).
  • EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 5081/11

    [ENG]

    In its decision no. II. ÚS 1191/08 of 14 April 2009 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the claimant's right not to be removed from the jurisdiction of his lawful judge.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht