Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAMAN v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. e, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c Violation of Art. 6-3-e Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 35292/05
• EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 35292/05
• EGMR - 35292/05

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 35292/05

  However, if it is to be effective for Convention purposes, a waiver of the right must be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by minimum safeguards (see Pishchalnikov v. Russia, no. 7025/04, § 77, 24 September 2009).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 35292/05

  As the Court has already held in its previous judgments, the right set out in paragraph 3 (c) of Article 6 of the Convention is one element, among others, of the concept of a fair trial in criminal proceedings contained in paragraph 1 (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 37, Series A no. 275, and Salduz, cited above, § 50).
• EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 32432/96

  TALAT TUNÇ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 35292/05

  Before an accused can be said to have implicitly, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (see Talat Tunç v. Turkey, no. 32432/96, § 59, 27 March 2007).

• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 22088/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 35292/05

  Taking into account the awards made in comparable cases (see Bolukoç and Others v. Turkey, no. 35392/04, § 47, 10 November 2009; Gürova v. Turkey, no. 22088/03, § 21, 6 October 2009; and Salduz, cited above, § 79), the Court finds it reasonable to award EUR 1, 000 under this head.
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 33675/02

  SEVER AND ASLAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 35292/05

  The Court therefore concludes that the applicant cannot be regarded as having been deprived of a fair hearing on account of the composition of the court (see Sever and Aslan (dec.), no. 33675/02, 12 April 2007).
• EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 13205/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 35292/05

  Finally, the Court has ruled that the assistance of an interpreter should be provided during the investigation stage unless it can be demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of the case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right (see Diallo v. Sweden (dec.), no. 13205/07, § 25, 5 January 2010).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 15185/05

  ÇELIK v. TURKEY

  Taking into account the awards made in comparable cases (see Salduz, cited above, § 79; Gürova v. Turkey, no. 22088/03, § 21, 6 October 2009; Bolukoç and Others v. Turkey, no. 35392/04, § 47, 10 November 2009; and Şaman v. Turkey, no. 35292/05, § 45, 5 April 2011), the Court finds it reasonable to award EUR 1, 000 under this head.
• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  ZADUMOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has consistently held that for an individual who has been convicted in proceedings which did not meet the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be a retrial or the reopening of the case, if requested (see, among many other authorities, Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, § 112, 2 November 2010, and Şaman v. Turkey, no. 35292/05, § 44, 5 April 2011).
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 17716/08

  [ENG]

  áƒ.áƒ�áƒ.áƒ�მáƒ�რთლáƒ�, áƒ�áƒ.ევე, áƒ�ღნიშნáƒ�ვáƒ., რáƒ�მ შიდáƒ�áƒ.áƒ�ხელმáƒáƒ˜áƒ¤áƒ�ებრივი პრáƒ�ცეáƒ.იáƒ. უáƒ.áƒ�მáƒ�რთლáƒ�ბიáƒ. გáƒ�მáƒ�, კáƒ�ნვენციიáƒ. მე-6 მუხლიáƒ. დáƒ�რღვევიáƒ. დáƒ�დგენიáƒ. შემთხვევáƒ�ში, შეáƒ.áƒ�ბáƒ�მიáƒ.ი შიდáƒ�áƒ.áƒ�ხელმáƒáƒ˜áƒ¤áƒ�ებრივი კáƒ�ნáƒ�ნმდებლáƒ�ბით შეáƒ.áƒ�ძლებელიáƒ� áƒ.áƒ�ქმიáƒ. áƒáƒ�რმáƒ�ებიáƒ. გáƒ�ნáƒ�ხლებáƒ� (იხ. თáƒ�ქთáƒ�ქიშვილი áƒ.áƒ�ქáƒ�რთველáƒ�áƒ. áƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒ�áƒ�ღმდეგ (Taktakishvili v. Georgia) (გáƒ�ნჩინებáƒ�), N 46055/06, §§ 22 დáƒ� 23, 16 áƒ�ქტáƒ�მბერი 2012; შეáƒ�დáƒ�რე მინდáƒ�ძე დáƒ� ნემáƒ.იáƒáƒ•áƒ”რიძე áƒ.áƒ�ქáƒ�რთველáƒ�áƒ. áƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒ�áƒ�ღმდეგ (Mindadze and Nemsitsveridze v. Georgia), N 21571/05, § 154, 1 ივნიáƒ.ი 2017; ფლიáƒ.áƒ�რი áƒ.ლáƒ�ვენიიáƒ. áƒáƒ�ინáƒ�áƒ�ღმდეგ (Flisar v. Slovenia), N 3127/09, § 47, 29 áƒ.ექტემბერი 2011 დáƒ� შáƒ�მáƒ�ნი თურქეთიáƒ. áƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒ�áƒ�ღმდეგ (Şaman v. Turkey), N 35292/05, § 44, 5 áƒ�პრილი 2011).

• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 47749/11

  ÇAKAR v. TURKEY

  Having considered that the applicant's complaint should be examined from the standpoint of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court holds that none of the complaints seem to disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention (see Saman v. Turkey, no. 35292/05, § 39, 5 April 2011).
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 24820/05

  FAZLI KAYA v. TURKEY

  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, 04.06.2013 - 11022/05

  [ENG]

  Taking into account the awards made in comparable cases (see Saman v. Turkey, no. 35292/05, § 45, 5 April 2011; Bolukoç and Others v. Turkey, no. 35392/04, § 47, 10 November 2009; Gürova v. Turkey, no. 22088/03, § 21, 6 October 2009; and Salduz, cited above, § 79), the Court finds it reasonable to award EUR 1, 000 under this head.
• EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 3042/05

  [ENG]

  Taking into account the awards made in comparable cases (see Saman v. Turkey, no. 35292/05, § 45, 5 April 2011; Bolukoç and Others v. Turkey, no. 35392/04, § 47, 10 November 2009; Gürova v. Turkey, no. 22088/03, § 21, 6 October 2009; and Salduz, cited above, § 79), the Court finds it reasonable to award EUR 1, 000 under this head.