Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 7377/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,68159
EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 7377/03 (https://dejure.org/2009,68159)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13.10.2009 - 7377/03 (https://dejure.org/2009,68159)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13. Oktober 2009 - 7377/03 (https://dejure.org/2009,68159)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,68159) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

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

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

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).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht