Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ICOZ c. TURQUIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Exceptions préliminaires rejetées (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes délai de six mois) Violation de l'art. 6-1 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement partiel frais et dépens ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 54919/00
• EGMR, 15.01.2004 - 54919/00

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Zitiert selbst (1)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2004 - 54919/00

  A l'appui de son argumentation, le Gouvernement fait référence à la jurisprudence de la Cour (entre autres, Bayram et Yıldırım c. Turquie (dec.), no 38587/97, 29 janvier 2002).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 31454/10

  CWIK v. POLAND

  The Court, however, reiterates that particular considerations apply in respect of the use in criminal proceedings of evidence obtained in breach of Article 3. The use of such evidence, secured as a result of a violation of one of the core and absolute rights guaranteed by the Convention, always raises serious issues as to the fairness of the proceedings, even if the admission of such evidence was not decisive in securing a conviction (see İçöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003; Jalloh, cited above, §§ 99 and 104; Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, § 63, ECHR 2007-III; and Gäfgen, cited above, § 165).
• EGMR, 26.01.2021 - 73313/17

  ZLICIC v. SERBIA

  However, particular considerations apply in respect of the use in criminal proceedings of evidence obtained in breach of Article 3. The use of such evidence, secured as a result of a violation of one of the core and absolute rights guaranteed by the Convention, always raises serious issues as to the fairness of the proceedings, even if the admission of such evidence was not decisive in securing a conviction (see, for example, İçöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003; Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006; Gäfgen, cited above, § 165; and El Haski v. Belgium, no. 649/08, § 85, 25 September 2012).
• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  [ENG]

  Nevertheless the Court reiterates that particular considerations apply in respect of the use in criminal proceedings of evidence obtained in breach of Article 3. The use of such evidence, secured as a result of a violation of one of the core and absolute rights guaranteed by the Convention, always raises serious issues as to the fairness of the proceedings, even if the admission of such evidence was not decisive in securing a conviction (see Ä°çöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 99-104, ECHR 2006-IX; and Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006).

• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 18280/04

  [ENG]

  The Court further reiterates that particular considerations apply in respect of the use in criminal proceedings of evidence recovered by a measure found to be in breach of Article 3. The use of such evidence, obtained as a result of a violation of one of the core rights guaranteed by the Convention, always raises serious issues as to the fairness of the proceedings even if the admission of such evidence was not decisive in securing the conviction (see Ä°çöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 99 and 104, ECHR 2006-IX; Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, § 73, 17 October 2006; and Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, § 63, ECHR 2007-VIII).
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 17332/03

  LEVINTA v. MOLDOVA

  As to the examination of the nature of the Convention violation found, the Court reiterates that particular considerations apply in respect of the use in criminal proceedings of evidence recovered by a measure found to be in breach of Article 3. The use of such evidence, obtained as a result of a violation of one of the core rights guaranteed by the Convention, always raises serious issues as to the fairness of the proceedings (see Ä°çöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 99 and 104, ECHR 2006-...; Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, § 73, 17 October 2006; and Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, § 63, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 60333/00

  SLYUSAREV v. RUSSIA

  The Court recalls that an issue may arise under Article 6 § 1 in respect of evidence obtained in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, even if the admission of such evidence was not decisive in securing the conviction (see Ä°çöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003; and Koç v. Turkey (dec.), no. 32580/96, 23 September 2003).
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  [ENG]

  Furthermore, it ought to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being in a state of uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey, no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Içöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003; and Kenar v. Turkey (dec.), no. 67215/01, 1 December 2005).
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 1399/07

  MEHMET ALI ESER v. TURKEY

  This complaint should therefore have been lodged with the Court no later than October 2004, whereas it was in fact lodged on 6 January 2007 (see İçöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003, and compare Ahmet Engin Şatır v. Turkey, no. 17879/04, §§ 35-36, 1 December 2009, and Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, §§ 50-53, 23 October 2018).
• EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 6644/08

  CAN v. TURKEY

  In the present case, this would have been at the latest by 8 February 2002 when the Istanbul State Security Court gave its judgment (see Ä°çöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003).
• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 56015/00

  KARABULUT v. TURKEY

  Accordingly, the six-month period prescribed by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention should be considered to have started running not later than 9 December 1997 (see Ä°çöz v. Turkey, (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003, and, mutatis mutandis, VeznedaroÄŸlu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 32357/96, 7 September 1999).
• EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 23480/06

  AKALIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 28.08.2008 - 35257/04

  BAHCELI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 7987/07

  ATSIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 39857/03

  KAHRAMAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 48719/08

  SIMSEK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 55650/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 60574/00

  KEKLIK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 1504/05

  ILASCU c. TURQUIE