Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 54919/00 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2003,30267) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ICÖZ v. TURKEY
Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 54919/00
- EGMR, 15.01.2004 - 54919/00
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24919/94
GERGER v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 54919/00
In this regard, the Court considers that the distinction is not made between different groups of people, but between different types of offences, according to the legislature's view of their gravity (see, mutatis mutandis, Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 69, ECHR 1999). - EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 11454/85
KOSTOVSKI v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 54919/00
The admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law and, as a rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them (see Kostovski v. The Netherlands judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 166, p. 19, § 39). - EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71
KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN v. DENMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 54919/00
The Court reiterates that Article 14 is not concerned with all differences of treatment but only with differences having as their basis or reason a personal characteristic ("status") by which persons or group of persons are distinguishable from each other (see Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 23, p. 29, § 56).
- OLG Stuttgart, 14.05.2007 - 3 Ausl 87/06
Strafvollstreckung: Unzulässigkeit der Auslieferung zur Strafvollstreckung an die …
Im Anschluss an EGMR a.a.O. Nr. 163 (noch weitergehend EGMR, Urteil Nr. 54919/00 vom 09. Januar 2003 Icoz v. Turkey sowie Urteil Nr. 32580/96 vom 23. September 2003 Koc v. Turkey) geht der Senat jedenfalls davon aus, dass eine Verurteilung, die tragend auf einem durch wirkliche Folter - nicht "bloß" durch sonstige unmenschliche oder erniedrigende Behandlung - erzwungenen Geständnis oder sonst in dieser Weise erzwungenen Angaben beruht ("decisive element in securing the [...] conviction"), zugleich den Kern des Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren berührt, deshalb nicht im Einklang mit den Mindeststandards steht und zur Unzulässigkeit einer Auslieferung zur Strafvollstreckung führt.
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 15.01.2004 - 54919/00 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,60515) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
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 ... (6)
- 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 Içöz 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, 07.07.2011 - 18280/04
SHISHKIN v. RUSSIA
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, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07
AYSU v. TURKEY
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, 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, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07
JANNATOV v. AZERBAIJAN
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, 12.11.2013 - 55650/07
AHMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
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).