Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 38740/09   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2018,33995
EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 38740/09 (https://dejure.org/2018,33995)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23.10.2018 - 38740/09 (https://dejure.org/2018,33995)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23. Oktober 2018 - 38740/09 (https://dejure.org/2018,33995)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,33995) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MEHMET DUMAN v. TURKEY

    Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (englisch)

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (89)Zitiert selbst (7)

  • EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 50541/08

    IBRAHIM ET AUTRES CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 38740/09
    On 7 October 2016 the Court invited the Government to submit further observations, if they so wished, following the judgment in Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016).

    Nor have they demonstrated that the absence of legal assistance at the initial stage of the investigation did not irretrievably prejudice the applicant's defence rights (see Salduz, cited above, § 58, and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 274.) In that respect, the Court notes that in convicting him, the first-instance court relied on, inter alia, the evidence collected in the absence of a lawyer during the applicant's twenty-two days' detention, such as his statements to the police and the public prosecutor and his statements taken during the reconstruction of events and the on-site inspections.

  • EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 44023/09

    BATMAZ v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 38740/09
    This is all the more problematic in view of the fact that the trial court relied on that evidence when sentencing the applicant to life imprisonment, despite the fact that he retracted them on several occasions (see, in respect of the same set of proceedings, Abdulgafur Batmaz v. Turkey, no. 44023/09, § 51, 24 May 2016).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92

    DIKME c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 38740/09
    Nevertheless, even a confession repeated in court cannot on its own be regarded as a decisive piece of evidence but must be supported by additional evidence (see Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, § 38, ECHR 2000-VIII).
  • EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 38907/09

    KOÇ v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 38740/09
    Likewise, the Court of Cassation dealt with this issue in a formalistic manner and failed to remedy this shortcoming (see Bayram Koç v. Turkey, no. 38907/09, § 23, 5 September 2017).
  • EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16404/03

    SHABELNIK v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 38740/09
    Hence, whilst the applicant failed to provide any tangible evidence in support of his ill-treatment allegations during the preliminary investigation stage, the fact that most of the co-defendants also confessed to their crimes during the same period, and subsequently denied them, alleging coercion, raises a prima facie case, and thus reasonable doubts as to the reliability and accuracy of such evidence (see Shabelnik v. Ukraine, no. 16404/03, § 59, 19 February 2009).
  • EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 2082/05

    CETINKAYA v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 38740/09
    However, the Court reiterates that the absence of an admissible Article 3 complaint does not, in principle, preclude the Court from taking into consideration the applicant's allegations that the police statements had been obtained using methods of coercion or oppression and that their admission to the case file, relied upon by the trial court, therefore constituted a violation of the fair trial guarantee of Article 6 (see Aydın Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 104, 2 February 2016).
  • EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 32347/02

    MEHMET EREN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 38740/09
    Furthermore, the Court reiterates that it has held, in a number of cases against Turkey, that collective medical examinations could only be described as superficial and cursory (see Mehmet Eren v. Turkey, no. 32347/02, § 41, 14 October 2008 and the references therein).
  • EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 6739/11

    BOKHONKO v. GEORGIA

    They, thus, failed to assess the quality of the evidence and whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy (see Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, §§ 45-46, 23 October 2018; Abdulkadyrov and Dakhtayev v. Russia, no. 35061/04, §§ 79-81, 10 July 2018; and Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, § 87, 6 October 2015).

    Interestingly enough, the majority seeks support for this position in three cases, cited in paragraph 94 (Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, 23 October 2018, Abdulkadyrov and Dakhtayev v. Russia, no. 35061/04, 10 July 2018 and Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, 6 October 2015).

  • EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 6683/10

    SARAR c. TURQUIE

    The Court has established in a number of cases, including cases brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints of systemic denial of legal assistance and the use of evidence obtained in the absence of a lawyer to convict applicants (see, among other authorities, Bayram Koç v. Turkey, no. 38907/09, 5 September 2017; İzzet Çelik v. Turkey, no. 15185/05, 23 January 2018; Canşad and Others v. Turkey, no. 7851/05, 13 March 2018; Girişen v. Turkey, no. 53567/07, 13 March 2018; Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; and Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, 23 October 2018).

    As a result, the Court considers that there is no need to examine the admissibility or the merits of the complaint regarding the Istanbul State Security Court's alleged lack of independence and impartiality on account of the presence of a military judge in its bench (see Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, §§ 48-49, 23 October 2018).

  • EGMR, 26.01.2021 - 73313/17

    ZLICIC v. SERBIA

    Indeed, even the absence of an admissible Article 3 complaint does not, in principle, preclude the Court from taking into consideration an applicant's allegations that the statements made before the police had been obtained using methods of coercion or oppression and that their admission to the case file, relied upon by the trial court, therefore constituted a violation of the fair trial guarantee of Article 6 (see Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, § 42, 23 October 2018, and Aydın Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 104, 2 February 2016).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht