Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SEDAL v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 7377/03

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 38802/08

  Accordingly, it was systematic and applied to anyone held in police custody in connection with an offence falling under the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts (see Salduz, cited above, §§ 56-63, and Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, §§ 30-34, 13 October 2009).
• EGMR, 31.05.2012 - 38560/04

  Staatsanwalt darf über Angeklagtem sitzen

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 38802/08

  Having regard to the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicant's waiver of her right to have a lawyer while she made her statements before the police was made in an unequivocal manner and was attended by minimum safeguards (see Yoldas, cited above, § 52, and Diriöz v. Turkey, no. 38560/04, § 35, 31 May 2012).
• EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 27503/04

  YOLDAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 38802/08

  A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in Yoldas v. Turkey, no. 27503/04, §§ 24-27, 23 February 2010.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 25253/08

  RUSEN BAYAR v. TURKEY

  In conclusion, the Court considers that it is unable to find that it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that the applicant had unequivocally, knowingly and intelligently waived his rights under Article 6 of the Convention (compare Şedal v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38802/08, § 36, 13 May 2014 where the applicant had seen his lawyer both before and after giving statements to the police).
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 50541/08
  It is important to note, first, that the present case is different from the case of Salduz as the absence of a lawyer during the applicants" initial police questioning did not result from the systemic application of a legal provision (see Sedal v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38802/08, § 33, 13 May 2014; compare Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, § 33, 13 October 2009; and Çimen v. Turkey, no. 19582/02, § 26, 3 February 2009).
• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 8494/07

  [FRE]

  À supposer que cet acte ait été réalisé durant l'interrogatoire par le capitaine N.E., la Cour note que le requérant ne donne pas non plus des précisions de cette nature par rapport aux faits allégués (voir, Şedal c. Turquie (déc.), no 38802/08, § 26, 13 mai 2014).
• EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 25148/07

  EKINCI v. TURKEY

  In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that it is unable to find that it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that the applicant unequivocally, knowingly and intelligently waived his rights under Article 6 of the Convention (compare Şedal v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38802/08, § 36, 13 May 2014, where the applicant had seen his lawyer both before and after giving statements to the police).
• EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 8211/10

  CANLI v. TURKEY

  Relying on that point and referring to the decisions in Kaytan (v. Turkey, no. 27422/05, § 31, 15 September 2015), and Şedal (v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38802/08, 13 May 2014), the Government invited the Court to declare this complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.