Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BÖKE AND KANDEMIR v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-3-c Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01

  To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt", but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, among many others, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV; Süleyman Erkan v. Turkey, no. 26803/02, § 31, 31 January 2008).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01

  A full description of the law and practice at the relevant time may be found in Batı and Others v. Turkey, (nos. 33097/06 and 57834/00, §§ 95-99, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)) and in Salduz v. Turkey ([GC], no. 36391/02, §§ 27-31 and 37-44, 27 November 2008).
• EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 26803/02

  SÜLEYMAN ERKAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01

  To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt", but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, among many others, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV; Süleyman Erkan v. Turkey, no. 26803/02, § 31, 31 January 2008).

 
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 32347/02

  MEHMET EREN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01

  As such, the Court considers that the medical reports in question cannot be relied on as evidence for proving or disproving that the applicant was ill-treated (see Mehmet Eren v. Turkey, no. 32347/02, §§ 40-42, 14 October 2008, and Gülbahar and Others v. Turkey, no. 5264/03, § 53, 21 October 2008)[4].
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 5264/03

  GÜLBAHAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01

  As such, the Court considers that the medical reports in question cannot be relied on as evidence for proving or disproving that the applicant was ill-treated (see Mehmet Eren v. Turkey, no. 32347/02, §§ 40-42, 14 October 2008, and Gülbahar and Others v. Turkey, no. 5264/03, § 53, 21 October 2008)[4].
• EGMR, 05.10.1988 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01

  It reiterates that, in the case of Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom (29 November 1988, § 62, Series A no. 145 B), it found that detention in police custody which had lasted four days and six hours without judicial control fell outside the strict time constraints of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

• EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 8077/08

  SAKIR KAÇMAZ v. TURKEY

  Nevertheless, in the absence of any evidence in support of the applicant's allegations, the Court considers that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its substantive aspect in respect of the ill-treatment to which the applicant was allegedly subjected during his detention in police custody (see Gülbahar and Others v. Turkey, no. 5264/03, § 54, 21 October 2008; and Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 50, 10 March 2009).
• EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 20406/05

  MEHMET ALI AYHAN c. TURQUIE

  Dans ces conditions, force est de conclure à la violation de l'article 6 §§ 1 et 3 c) de la Convention, pour les mêmes motifs que ceux retenus dans l'arrêt Salduz, précité, dans ses paragraphes 56 à 59 et 62 (voir également Böke et Kandemir c. Turquie, nos 71912/01, 26968/02 et 36397/03, § 71, 10 mars 2009, et l'arrêt plus récent encore Karabil c. Turquie, no 5256/02, § 45, 16 juin 2009).