Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SARAC v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 35841/97

  Thus Article 6, especially paragraph 3, may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with the provisions (see, in this respect, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, § 36).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24919/94

  GERGER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 35841/97

  The Court has previously held that such distinctions are not contrary to Article 14 of the Convention (see Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 69, 8 July 1999, and Z.E. and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 35980/97, 14 December 2000).
• EGMR, 31.01.2002 - 57039/00

  EPÖZDEMIR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 35841/97

  It notes in this context that there are precedents indicating that appeals against decisions of public prosecutors not to prosecute have been successful and subsequently prosecutions were brought (see, mutatis mutandis, Epözdemir v. Turkey (dec.), no. 57039/00, 31 January 2002, Keçeci v. Turkey (friendly settlement), no. 38588/97, § 19, 26 November 2002, and Fidan v. Turkey (dec), no. 24209/94, 29 February 2000).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 36391/02

  Wirksamkeitsverpflichtete Konventionsauslegung; Recht auf konkreten und wirksamen …

  The Government further drew attention to several Turkish cases (Saraç v. Turkey (dec.), no. 35841/97, 2 September 2004; Yurtsever v. Turkey (dec.), no. 42086/02, 31 August 2006; Uçma and Uçma v. Turkey (dec.), no. 15071/03, 3 October 2006; Ahmet Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38827/02, 21 November 2006, and Yildiz and Sönmez v. Turkey (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 60167/00

  PAD AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  In this context, referring to the Court's decisions in similar cases against Turkey where it had found that there were precedents indicating that appeals against decisions of public prosecutors not to prosecute had been successful and subsequently prosecutions had been brought (they cited Epözdemir v. Turkey (dec.), no. 57039/00, 31 January 2002; Fidan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 2429/94, 29 February 2000; and Saraç v. Turkey (dec.), no. 35841/97, 2 September 2004), the Government asserted that the applicants could not be considered to have complied with the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 18.12.2007 - 32124/02

  NURETTIN ALDEMIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Relying on the Court's jurisprudence in similar cases (see, among others, Selal Saraç v. Turkey, no. 35841/97, 2 September 2004, Ete v. Turkey, no. 29315/02, 13 June 2006 and Uçma v. Turkey, no. 15071/03, 3 October 2006), the Government claimed that the remedy contained in Article 165 was an effective one and that it had provided a prospect of success.

• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 44023/09

  BATMAZ v. TURKEY

  Le procureur de la République a rendu le 24 octobre 1995 une décision de non-lieu à poursuivre qui n'a pas été contestée par le requérant, conformément au droit interne national (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Saraç c. Turquie (déc.), no 35841/97, 2 septembre 2004, et Kaya c. Turquie (déc.), no 5168/05, 14 juin 2011).
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 34364/08

  [ENG]

  As to the Government's submission concerning the six-month' rule, the Court reiterates that in Turkey an appeal against decisions of public prosecutors not to prosecute constitutes, in principle, an effective and accessible domestic remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Epözdemir v. Turkey (dec.), no. 57039/00, 31 January 2002; Saraç v. Turkey (dec.), no. 35841/97, 2 September 2004; Hıdır Durmaz v. Turkey, no. 55913/00, §§ 29-30, 5 December 2006; Pad and others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 60167/00, § 67, 28 June 2007; Nurettin Aldemir and Others v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 2091/07

  [ENG]

  The applicant's complaint under Article 3 of the Convention must therefore be declared inadmissible and rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Saraç v. Turkey (dec.), no.35841/97, ECHR).
• EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 14129/11

  INAN v. TURKEY

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that it has found in a number of cases against Turkey that an appeal against decisions of public prosecutors not to prosecute constitutes, in principle, an effective and accessible remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Epözdemir v. Turkey (dec.), no. 57039/00, 31 January 2002; Saraç v. Turkey (dec.), no. 35841/97, 2 September 2004; Hıdır Durmaz v. Turkey, no. 55913/00, 5 December 2006, §§ 29-30; Pad and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 60167/00, § 67, 28 June 2007; Nurettin Aldemir and Others v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 5168/05

  [FRE]

  Il était donc tenu d'user de ce moyen procédural, à l'instar d'autres requérants qui, auparavant, en avaient eux aussi tiré profit (Emin AladaÄŸ c. Turquie (déc.), no 6781/04, 2 septembre 2008, Toktas c. Turquie (déc.), no 38382/97, 5 mars 2002, Sultan Öner et autres c. Turquie, no 73792/01, § 112, 17 octobre 2006, Saraç c. Turquie (déc.), no 35841/97, 2 septembre 2004, Hıdır Durmaz c. Turquie, no 55913/00, § 30, 5 décembre 2006, Sen c. Turquie (déc.), no 41478/98, 30 avril 2002, Keçeci c. Turquie (déc.), no 38588/97, 17 octobre 2000, Fidan c. Turquie (déc.), no 24209/94, 29 février 2000, Avcı c. Turquie (déc.), no 42583/98, 6 juillet 2004, et Usun c. Turquie (déc.), no 29732/08, 28 septembre 2010).
• EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 17561/04

  [FRE]

  La Cour a déjà énoncé que la voie d'opposition en question, telle que la connaît le système judiciaire turc, ne pouvait passer comme étant dépourvue de toute chance d'aboutir et était donc à épuiser (Saraç c. Turquie (déc.), no 35841/97, 2 septembre 2004, Hıdır Durmaz c. Turquie, no 55913/00, §§ 29-30, 5 décembre 2006, et Sultan Öner et autres c. Turquie, no 73792/01, § 112, 17 octobre 2006).
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 19637/05

  INAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court reiterates at the outset that an appeal against decisions of public prosecutors not to prosecute constitutes, in principle, an effective and accessible remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Nurettin Aldemir and Others v. Turkey, nos. 32124/02, 32126/02, 32129/02, 32132/02, 32133/02, 32137/02 and 32138/02, § 52, 18 December 2007; Hıdır Durmaz v. Turkey, no. 55913/00, § 29, 5 December 2006; Saraç v. Turkey (dec.), no. 35841/97, 2 September 2004; Nuray Sen v. Turkey (dec.), no. 41478/98, 30 April 2002).
• EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 47368/99

  SOYKAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 55913/00

  HIDIR DURMAZ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 15071/03

  UCMA v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 40314/08

  TEKPETEK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 29732/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 02.09.2008 - 6781/04

  ALADAG c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.06.2006 - 29315/02

  ETE v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 28.04.2020 - 66859/12

  ARPALI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 22.11.2018 - 13124/08

  BOSYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 8074/02

  SEVINC ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 32581/96

  KOÇAK v. TURKEY