Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BÜLBÜL v. TURKEY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) - claim dismissed ...

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2007 - 47297/99

  However, the Court has held in several judgments that independence of the executive is one of the most important constitutive elements of the notion of a "court" (see Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, § 24 and D.N. v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27154/95, § 42, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

  Schiesser ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2007 - 47297/99

  One of the most important of such conditions is independence of the executive and the parties (Schiesser v. Switzerland, judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, § 31).
• EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 27154/95

  D.N. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2007 - 47297/99

  However, the Court has held in several judgments that independence of the executive is one of the most important constitutive elements of the notion of a "court" (see Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, § 24 and D.N. v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27154/95, § 42, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 26.08.2003 - 59493/00

  WITHEY contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2007 - 47297/99

  Since the proceedings would only resume if the applicant were to commit another offence of the same or more serious kind within five years of the court's decision, the decision to suspend them may be regarded as bringing the case to a close (see Withey v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 59493/00, ECHR 2003-X, Koç et Tambas v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46947/99, 24 February 2005 and Güzel v. Turkey (dec.), no. 65849/01, 18 October 2005).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 46947/99

  KOC ET TAMBAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2007 - 47297/99

  Since the proceedings would only resume if the applicant were to commit another offence of the same or more serious kind within five years of the court's decision, the decision to suspend them may be regarded as bringing the case to a close (see Withey v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 59493/00, ECHR 2003-X, Koç et Tambas v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46947/99, 24 February 2005 and Güzel v. Turkey (dec.), no. 65849/01, 18 October 2005).

• EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 21181/19

  TULEYA v. POLAND

  This principle particularly concerns the grievance that the decision-making body was not a "tribunal" fulfilling the criteria of Article 6 (see Bülbül v. Turkey, no. 47297/99, 22 May 2007).
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 1704/06

  RAMISHVILI AND KOKHREIDZE v. GEORGIA

  The Court recalls that, even without an explicit stipulation of these requirements in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, it would be inconceivable to suppose that this provision, which enshrines the right "to take proceedings [in] a court", did not envisage, as a fundamental requisite, the independence and impartiality of that court (see Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 24, Series A no. 8; D.N. v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27154/95, § 42, ECHR 2001-III; Bülbül v. Turkey, no. 47297/99, §§ 26-28, 22 May 2007).
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 42969/04

  ALI OSMAN ÖZMEN c. TURQUIE

  Il appartient aux autorités nationales de développer des formes de contrôle juridictionnel adaptées aux circonstances mais respectueuses de la Convention (Bülbül c. Turquie, no 47297/99, § 21, 22 mai 2007, et Estrikh c. Lettonie, no 73819/01, § 115, 18 janvier 2007).
• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 31796/10

  REVTYUK v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that, even though the wording of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which enshrines the right "to take proceedings [in] a court", is different from that of Article 6 § 1 in that it does not contain an explicit mention of that court's independence and impartiality, it would be inconceivable to suppose that the provision relating to such a fundamental issue as the freedom from an arbitrary deprivation of liberty would not require, as a fundamental guarantee, the independence and impartiality of the court (see D.N. v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27154/95, § 42, ECHR 2001-III; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 81, 28 November 2002; Bülbül v. Turkey, no. 47297/99, §§ 26-28, 22 May 2007; Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, § 133, 27 January 2009; and Ali Osman Özmen v. Turkey, no. 42969/04, § 85, 5 July 2016).