Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 28.07.2009

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 30.08.2005 - 74307/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2005,59074
EGMR, 30.08.2005 - 74307/01 (https://dejure.org/2005,59074)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30.08.2005 - 74307/01 (https://dejure.org/2005,59074)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30. August 2005 - 74307/01 (https://dejure.org/2005,59074)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,59074) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (0)Zitiert selbst (3)

  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71

    Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen, Pedersen u.a. ./. Dänemark

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2005 - 74307/01
    The Court further 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 a 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).
  • EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 73561/01

    KALAN contre la TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2005 - 74307/01
    Nor does it secure a right to conditional release (see Kalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73561/01, 2 October 2001; (see Savic v. the Slovak Republic, no. 28409/95, Commission decision of 3 December 1997).
  • EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 879/02

    DEVRIM TURAN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2005 - 74307/01
    However, the application was lodged with the Court on 30 May 2001, which is more than six months from the end of the detention period complained of (see, among others, Kanat v. Turkey (dec.), no. 16622/02, 28 April 2005 and Turan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 879/02, 27 February 2005).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 74307/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,68993
EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 74307/01 (https://dejure.org/2009,68993)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28.07.2009 - 74307/01 (https://dejure.org/2009,68993)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28. Juli 2009 - 74307/01 (https://dejure.org/2009,68993)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,68993) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    GÖK AND GÜLER v. TURKEY

    Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (2)Zitiert selbst (16)

  • EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

    Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 74307/01
    On this point, the Court relies on the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6 (see, in particular, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 36, Series A no. 275, Öcalan, cited above, § 131, Salduz, cited above, § 55, and Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 100, ECHR 2006-...).
  • EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

    IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 74307/01
    On this point, the Court relies on the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6 (see, in particular, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 36, Series A no. 275, Öcalan, cited above, § 131, Salduz, cited above, § 55, and Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 100, ECHR 2006-...).
  • EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

    EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 74307/01
    The Court's task under the Convention is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see, among other authorities, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 74307/01
    Such proof may, however, follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

    Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 74307/01
    The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 3 (see, in particular, ErdoÄŸan Yağız v. Turkey, no. 27473/02, §§ 35-37, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), Hacı Özen v. Turkey, no. 46286/99, §§ 44-45, 12 April 2007, Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 37, ECHR 2002-IX, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

    MOUISEL v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 74307/01
    The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 3 (see, in particular, ErdoÄŸan Yağız v. Turkey, no. 27473/02, §§ 35-37, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), Hacı Özen v. Turkey, no. 46286/99, §§ 44-45, 12 April 2007, Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 37, ECHR 2002-IX, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 35811/97

    KOLU c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 74307/01
    The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time as well as recent developments can be found in the following judgments: Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, §§ 52-54, ECHR 2005-IV; AydoÄŸan and Others v. Turkey, no. 41967/02, § 17, 2 December 2008; Kolu v. Turkey, no. 35811/97, § 44, 2 August 2005; and Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, §§ 27-31, 27 November 2008.
  • EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 10301/03

    GETIREN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 74307/01
    The Court notes at the outset that it has already held in previous cases that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality has been established cannot in any circumstances guarantee a fair trial to the persons under its jurisdiction and that, accordingly, it is not necessary to examine complaints regarding the fairness of the proceedings before that court (see, among other authorities, Benli v. Turkey, no. 65715/01, § 40, 20 February 2007, Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, § 132, 22 July 2008, and Juhnke v. Turkey, no. 52515/99, § 94, 13 May 2008).
  • EGMR, 06.03.2007 - 27473/02

    ERDOGAN YAGIZ v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 74307/01
    The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 3 (see, in particular, ErdoÄŸan Yağız v. Turkey, no. 27473/02, §§ 35-37, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), Hacı Özen v. Turkey, no. 46286/99, §§ 44-45, 12 April 2007, Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 37, ECHR 2002-IX, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01

    BÖKE AND KANDEMIR v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 74307/01
    Nevertheless, as it has held in previous cases, that does not preclude their complaint in relation to Article 3 from being "arguable" for the purposes of the positive obligation to investigate (see Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009[1]).
  • EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 1636/02

    TAMAMBOGA AND GÜL v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 30465/02

    AHMET METE v. TURKEY (No. 2)

  • EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 65715/01

    Benli ./. Türkei

  • EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 41967/02

    AYDOGAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 2624/02

    HIDIR KAYA v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 13017/02

    PAKKAN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 13.04.2010 - 37040/07

    [ENG]

    The Court considers that, in the absence of any relevant documents in support of these claims as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, it makes no award under this head (see Gök and Güler v. Turkey, no. 74307/01, § 66, 28 July 2009).
  • EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 14152/02

    GULER v. TURKEY

    However, the application was lodged with the Court on 4 September 1999, which is more than six months from the end of the detention period complained of (see, among others, Gök and Güler v. Turkey (dec.), no. 74307/01, 30 August 2005).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht