Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BARAN AND HUN v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-c Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (21)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 30685/05

  While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140).
• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99

  OKKALI c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 30685/05

  While there is no absolute obligation for all prosecutions to result in conviction or in a particular sentence, the national courts should not under any circumstances be prepared to allow grave attacks on physical and moral integrity to go unpunished (see Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 65, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 36549/03

  Recht auf ein faires Strafverfahren (Beweisverwertungsverbot; Verwertungsverbot …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 30685/05

  Any other conclusion would only serve to legitimate indirectly the sort of morally reprehensible conduct which the authors of Article 3 of the Convention sought to proscribe or, in other words, to "afford brutality the cloak of law" (see Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, § 63, ECHR 2007-VIII).

• EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 46661/99

  SÖYLEMEZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 30685/05

  The Court has already held that the use of evidence obtained in violation of Article 3 in criminal proceedings could infringe the fairness of such proceedings even if the admission of such evidence was not decisive in securing the conviction (ibid., § 99, and Söylemez v. Turkey, no. 46661/99, § 23, 21 September 2006).
• EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 44093/98

  ÇELIK AND IMRET v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 30685/05

  The minimum standards as to effectiveness defined by the Court's case-law include the requirements that the investigation be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny, and that the competent authorities act with exemplary diligence and promptness (see, for example, Çelik and Ä°mret v. Turkey, no. 44093/98, § 55, 26 October 2004).
• EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 10301/03

  GETIREN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 30685/05

  It concludes therefore there is no need to make a separate ruling on the merits of the applicants' remaining complaints under this provision (see, for example, Juhnke v. Turkey, no. 52515/99, § 94, 13 May 2008, and Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, § 132, 22 July 2008 and the cases referred to therein).
• EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 46213/99

  ÖRS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 30685/05

  It has further held that the absence of an Article 3 complaint does not preclude the Court from taking into consideration the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment for the purpose of determining compliance with the guarantees of Article 6 (see Örs and Others v. Turkey, no. 46213/99, § 60, 20 June 2006, and Kolu, cited above, § 54).
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 19374/03

  ERDOGAN YILMAZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 30685/05

  In this connection, the Court reaffirms that when an agent of the State is accused of crimes which violate Article 3, the criminal proceedings and sentencing must not be time-barred and the granting of an amnesty or pardon should not be permissible (see ErdoÄŸan Yılmaz and Others v. Turkey, no. 19374/03, § 56, 14 October 2008).
• EGMR, 05.06.2007 - 34738/04

  YESIL ET SEVIM c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 30685/05

  In this context the Court reiterates its earlier finding in a number of cases that the Turkish criminal-law system, as applied, can prove to be far from rigorous and to have no dissuasive effect capable of ensuring the effective prevention of unlawful acts perpetrated by State agents if criminal proceedings brought against the latter become time-barred (see, among other authorities, Yesil and Sevim v. Turkey, no. 34738/04, § 42, 5 June 2007, and Hüseyin Esen v. Turkey, no. 49048/99, § 63, 8 August 2006).
• EGMR, 08.08.2006 - 49048/99

  HUSEYIN ESEN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 30685/05

  In this context the Court reiterates its earlier finding in a number of cases that the Turkish criminal-law system, as applied, can prove to be far from rigorous and to have no dissuasive effect capable of ensuring the effective prevention of unlawful acts perpetrated by State agents if criminal proceedings brought against the latter become time-barred (see, among other authorities, Yesil and Sevim v. Turkey, no. 34738/04, § 42, 5 June 2007, and Hüseyin Esen v. Turkey, no. 49048/99, § 63, 8 August 2006).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

  BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.01.2002 - 62566/00

  HAZAR, TEKTAS, BEKIROGLU, PEKOL, BOZKUS, TEKTAS, ATMAN, ISIK, AKSUCU, DOSTER, …
• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 35811/97

  KOLU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 45906/99

  ZYNEP OZCAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 6291/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.06.2007 - 18207/03

  NEVRUZ KOÇ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 40074/98

  FEYZI YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.09.2019 - 36617/07

  AFET SÜREYYA EREN AGAINST TURKEY AND 130 OTHER CASES

  30685/05.
• EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

  CETINKAYA v. TURKEY

  Although the applicant had pleaded in his defence that he had been subjected to ill-treatment whilst giving the police statements, the State Security Court, when convicting the applicant, repeatedly referred to the "content of the case-file as a whole" in its reasoning (see paragraph 56 above), not excluding in any way these statements allegedly obtained by ill-treatment, despite the fact that Turkish law does not usually attach consequences to any confessions obtained during questioning but later denied in court and which are decisive for the prospects of the defence (see Kolu v. Turkey, no. 35811/97, § 60, 2 August 2005; Örs and Others, cited above, § 59; Baran and Hun v. Turkey, no. 30685/05, § 70, 20 May 2010).
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 53073/07

  [ENG]

  Hence, according to the Government, the applicant failed to demonstrate due diligence and take the appropriate initiative to lodge his complaint with due expedition as required by the six-month rule laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Baran and Hun v. Turkey, no. 30685/05, § 46, 20 May 2010, and, mutatis mutandis, Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, §§ 43 and 51, 15 December 2009).
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 30689/05

  KIRLANGIÇ c. TURQUIE

  En 2005, pour raisons de bonne administration de la justice, les griefs du requérant et d'une autre partie furent disjoints de la requête originelle et réenregistrés comme requêtes distinctes sous les numéros 30685/05 et 30689/05, cette dernière étant celle faisant l'objet de la présente affaire.