Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 7377/03 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DAYANAN c. TURQUIE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c+6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Partiellement irrecevable Violation de l'art. 6-3-c+6-1 Violation de l'art. 6-1 Préjudice moral - réparation Dommage matériel - demande rejetée (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DAYANAN v. TURKEY
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c+6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-3-c+6-1 Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[FRE]
Wird zitiert von ... (39) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 36590/97
GOC ET 48 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 7377/03
The relevant provisions of Turkish law can be found in, among other judgments, Salduz v. Turkey ([GC], no. 36391/02, §§ 27-31, 27 November 2008) and Göç v. Turkey ([GC], no. 36590/97, § 34, ECHR 2002-V).As to the failure to send the applicant a copy of the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation, the Court observes that it previously examined a complaint identical to that of the applicant and concluded that, in view of the nature of the prosecutor's observations and the inability of the party in question to respond to them in writing, the non-communication of the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation violated Article 6 § 1 (see Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, § 55, ECHR 2002-V).
- EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 31423/96
PAPACHELAS v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 7377/03
Where the domestic law does not provide for service, however, the Court considers it appropriate to take the date the decision was finalised as the starting-point, that being when the parties were definitely able to find out its content (see, mutatis mutandis, Papachelas v. Greece [GC], no. 31423/96, § 30, ECHR 1999-II, and Seher Karatas v. Turkey (dec.), no. 33179/96, 9 July 2002). - EGMR, 09.07.2002 - 33179/96
SEHER KARATAS c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 7377/03
Where the domestic law does not provide for service, however, the Court considers it appropriate to take the date the decision was finalised as the starting-point, that being when the parties were definitely able to find out its content (see, mutatis mutandis, Papachelas v. Greece [GC], no. 31423/96, § 30, ECHR 1999-II, and Seher Karatas v. Turkey (dec.), no. 33179/96, 9 July 2002). - EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88
POITRIMOL c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 7377/03
In relation to the absence of legal assistance in police custody, the Court reiterates that the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial (see Salduz, cited above, § 51; Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A no. 277-A; and Demebukov v. Bulgaria, no. 68020/01, § 50, 28 February 2008).
- EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 37537/13
BORG v. MALTA
It further noted case-law subsequent to Salduz in which the Court had found a violation despite the fact that the applicant had remained silent while in police custody (Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, 13 October 2009) and despite there being no admission of guilt in the statements given by the applicants (Yesilkaya v. Turkey, no. 59780/00, 8 December 2009).The applicant further referred to Dayanan v. Turkey (no. 7377/03, 13 October 2009) where the Court had found a violation on the basis that there was a systemic restriction on access to a lawyer (as in Malta), despite the fact that the applicant had remained silent during questioning.
A systemic restriction of this kind, based on the relevant statutory provisions, was sufficient in itself for the Court to find a violation of Article 6 (see, for example, Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03 §§ 31-33, 13 October 2009; Yesilkaya v. Turkey, no. 59780/00, 8 December 2009; and Fazli Kaya v. Turkey, no. 24820/05, 17 September 2013).
[7] Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, 13 October 2009.
- EGMR, 12.05.2017 - 21980/04
SIMEONOVI c. BULGARIE
Even if one assumes that no interrogations took place during the first three days of the applicant's detention, the absence of interrogations would not be of any substantial support for the Government's argument, since, according to the case-law of the Court, "whether interrogations take place or not" is immaterial for the fairness of criminal proceedings under Article 6 of the Convention (see A.T. v. Luxembourg, cited above, § 64, relevant passage cited in paragraph 29 above; and see, similarly, Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, § 32, 13 October 2009).It also reiterates that it has held that the fairness of proceedings requires that an accused be able to obtain the whole range of services specifically associated with legal assistance (see Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, § 32, 13 October 2009).
- EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 11/05
GÜRBÜZ AND ÖZÇELIK v. TURKEY
In so far as the applicants argued that they had been denied legal assistance during their police custody, the Court recalls that at the material time, the restriction imposed on the applicants" right to legal assistance was systemic and applied to anyone held in custody in connection with an offence falling under the jurisdiction of the State security courts (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, §§ 56-63, ECHR 2008, and Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, §§ 30-34, 13 October 2009).
- EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 35485/05
HUSEYN AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
Even in cases where an accused person remained silent and was not questioned in detention, a restriction of his or her right to legal assistance from the time of the arrest may fall short of the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention (see Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, §§ 32-33, ECHR 2009-...). - EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 47152/06
BLOKHIN v. RUSSIA
Or la Cour a déjà jugé qu'une restriction systématique au droit d'accès à un avocat sur la base de dispositions légales suffit par elle-même à justifier le constat d'une violation de l'article 6 (Dayanan c. Turquie, no 7377/03, § 33, 13 octobre 2009). - EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 1466/07
BRUSCO c. FRANCE
La Cour rappelle également que la personne placée en garde à vue a le droit d'être assistée d'un avocat dès le début de cette mesure ainsi que pendant les interrogatoires, et ce a fortiori lorsqu'elle n'a pas été informée par les autorités de son droit de se taire (voir les principes dégagés notamment dans les affaires Salduz c. Turquie [GC], no 36391/02, §§ 50-62, 27 novembre 2008, Dayanan c. Turquie, no 7377/03, §§ 30-34, 13 octobre 2009, Boz c. Turquie, no 2039/04, §§ 33-36, 9 février 2010, et Adamkiewicz c. Pologne, no 54729/00 §§ 82-92, 2 mars 2010). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 07.11.2019 - C-659/18
VW (Droit d'accès à un avocat en cas de non-comparution) - Justizielle …
4 Vgl. beispielsweise die ständige Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (im Folgenden: EGMR): "Das Recht eines jeden, der einer Straftat angeklagt ist, von einem Anwalt wirksam verteidigt zu werden, ist eines der grundlegenden Merkmale eines fairen Verfahrens"; vgl. u. a. EGMR, Urteile vom 13. Oktober 2009, Dayanan/Türkei (CE:ECHR:2009:1013JUD000737703, § 30), und vom 23. Mai 2019, Doyle/Irland (CE:ECHR:2019:0523JUD005197917, § 67). - EGMR, 09.04.2015 - 30460/13
A.T. c. LUXEMBOURG
Ainsi notamment, une « note de service No 49/2011'de la police grand-ducale du 20 juin 2011 - qui vaut également pour les agents des douanes s'ils procèdent à un interrogatoire d'une personne privée de liberté - prévoit qu'il y a lieu de se conformer à la jurisprudence de la Cour (Salduz c. Turquie [GC], no 36391/02, CEDH 2008 et Dayanan c. Turquie, no 7377/03, 13 octobre 2009) sous peine de voir annuler les procédures engagées, et précise que les chapitres concernés des prescriptions de service ont été modifiés en conséquence. - EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 20372/11
VYERENTSOV v. UKRAINE
The very fact of restricting access of a detained suspect to a lawyer may prejudice the rights of the defence even where no incriminating statements are obtained as a result (see, for example, Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, §§ 32-33, 13 October 2009). - EGMR, 28.04.2015 - 36001/06
GALIP DOGRU c. TURQUIE
De même, elle rappelle avoir précisé que l'équité de la procédure requiert qu'un accusé puisse bénéficier de toute la vaste gamme d'interventions qui sont propres au conseil (Dayanan c. Turquie, no 7377/03, § 32, 13 octobre 2009). - EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 62880/11
NAVONE ET AUTRES c. MONACO
- EGMR, 28.08.2012 - 71407/10
SIMONS c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 13810/04
SHAMARDAKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 4429/09
SEBALJ v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 4722/09
TURBYLEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 7993/05
MINCULESCU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 9762/03
SAVAS c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 21980/04
SIMEONOVI c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 19181/09
SÎRGHI c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 7459/04
GÖKBULUT c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 23.06.2011 - 20024/04
ZDRAVKO PETROV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 31814/03
HOVANESIAN c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63763/11
ZINCHENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 34116/04
STANCA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 11778/05
SMOLIK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 29.06.2010 - 12976/05
KARADAG c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 75330/01
SHARKUNOV AND MEZENTSEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 1191/08 (anhängig)
AY v. TURKEY
- EGMR - 16242/08 (anhängig)
ALEKSEYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 23501/07
AHMET ERYILMAZ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11
ANDREY YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 37315/10
SERTKAYA v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 3042/05
KONAK v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 24895/06
MARZOHL c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 23909/03
DESDE v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 48667/10
FEHER c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 43438/07
BOUKNETER c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 51563/07
SIMOES c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 17880/07
BASAR c. TURQUIE