Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EVRENOS ÖNEN v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 29782/02

  However, the indications furnished by the domestic law of the respondent State have only a relative value (see, Öztürk v. Germany judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, p. 19, § 52).

  In view of the above, the Court considers that although the proceedings were not classified as "criminal" in domestic law, having regard to the nature of the offence, the nature and degree of severity of the penalty that the applicant was faced with, the fine imposed on the applicant was "criminal" within the meaning of the Convention (see, Öztürk v. Germany, judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, § 50).

• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 29782/02

  Where, however, domestic law provides for a right of appeal, the appeal proceedings will be treated as an extension of the trial process and accordingly will be subject to Article 6 (Delcourt v. Belgium, judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, § 25).
• EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86

  BENDENOUN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 29782/02

  This does not exclude that a cumulative approach may be adopted where the separate analysis of each criterion does not make it possible to reach a clear conclusion as to the existence of a "criminal charge" (see, among other authorities, Garyfallou AEBE, cited above, p. 1830, § 33; and Bendenoun v. France, judgment of 24 February 1994, Series A no. 284, p. 20, § 47).
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 16757/90

  STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 29782/02

  Such rights are implicit in the very notion of an adversarial procedure and can also be derived from the guarantees contained in sub-paragraphs (c) and (e) of Article 6 § 3 (see, among others, Stanford v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 282-A, pp. 10-11, § 26).

• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 37215/04

  ALDEMIR v. TURKEY

  The Court recalls that it has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present applications (see, inter alia, KarahanoÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 74341/01, §§ 35-39, 3 October 2006; Evrenos Önen v. Turkey, no. 29782/02, §§ 29-33, 15 February 2007; Nurhan Yılmaz v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 16741/04, §§ 22-24, 8 April 2008; Günseli Kaya v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 40886/02, §§ 29- 32, 23 June 2009).