Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IGDELI v. TURKEY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 29296/95
• EGMR, 30.05.2000 - 29296/95
• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 29296/95

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 29296/95

  The Court considers that where a detained person has to wait for a period to challenge the lawfulness of his custody, there may be a breach of Article 5 § 4. Having regard to the conclusion it reached with regard to Article 5 § 3 (see paragraph 33 above) the Court considers that the period in question sits ill with the notion of "speedily" under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (the Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p.29, § 53).
• EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92

  DIKME c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 29296/95

  The Court has accepted on several occasions that the investigation of terrorist offences undoubtedly presents the authorities with special problems (see the following judgments: Brogan and Others, cited above, p. 33, § 61; Murray v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1994, Series A no. 300-A, p. 27, § 58; Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2282, § 78; Sakık and Others v. Turkey, 26 November 1997, Reports 1997-VII, p. 2623, § 44; and Demir and Others v. Turkey, 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2653, § 41; Dikme v Turkey, no. 20869/92, 11 July 2000).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.11.2004 - 32446/96

  ABDULSAMET YAMAN v. TURKEY

  Having regard to the conclusion reached with regard to Article 5 § 3 (see paragraphs 74 and 75 above) the Court considers that the period in question (nine days) sits ill with the notion of "speedily" under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Igdeli v. Turkey, no. 29296/95, § § 34 and 35, 20 June 2002; Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 29, § 53).

  Having regard to its case-law, and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 2, 700 (see İgdeli v. Turkey, no. 29296/95, § 41, 20 June 2002 and Dalkılıç v. Turkey, no. 25756/94, § 36, 5 December 2002).

• EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 16608/02

  FATMA TUNC v. TURKEY

  Rn. 26 Having regard to the conclusion reached with regard to Article 5 § 3 (see paragraphs 20 and 21 above) the Court considers that the period in question (six days) sits ill with the notion of "speedily" under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Igdeli v. Turkey, no. 29296/95, §§ 34 and 35, 20 June 2002; Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 29, § 53).
• EGMR, 17.06.2003 - 41478/98

  NURAY SEN v. TURKEY

  Deciding on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41, it awards her the sum of EUR 3, 600 (see İğdeli v. Turkey, no. 29296/95, § 41, 20 June 2002, unreported and Filiz and Kalkan v. Turkey, no. 34481/97, § 32, 20 June 2002, unreported).
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 51479/99

  ÇELIK ET YILDIZ c. TURQUIE

  Dans l'affaire İğdeli c. Turquie (no 29296/95, 20 juin 2002) (le requérant avait été maintenu sept jours en garde à vue sans voir un juge), où la Cour a constaté une violation des paragraphes 3 et 4 de l'article 5, 1e requérant a perçu 457 EUR par jour au-delà du troisième jour.