Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOSTI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 No violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.08.2005 - 74321/01
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

  The Court reiterates that it is not for the Convention bodies to cure of their own motion any shortcomings or lack of precision in the respondent Government's arguments (see, in particular, Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, p. 77, § 35).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

  Although, in general, the expression "the state of evidence" may be a relevant factor for the existence and persistence of serious indications of guilt, in the present case it nevertheless, alone, cannot justify a length of preventive detention of over two years and three months, in particular, having regard to the young age of the applicants (see, in particular, Selçuk v. Turkey, no. 21768/02, §§ 34-36, 10 January 2006, Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, Mansur v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-B, § 55).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

  Although, in general, the expression "the state of evidence" may be a relevant factor for the existence and persistence of serious indications of guilt, in the present case it nevertheless, alone, cannot justify a length of preventive detention of over two years and three months, in particular, having regard to the young age of the applicants (see, in particular, Selçuk v. Turkey, no. 21768/02, §§ 34-36, 10 January 2006, Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, Mansur v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-B, § 55).

• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 61442/00

  ACUNBAY c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

  Accordingly, the Court has recognised that Article 35 § 1 must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism (see Acunbay v. Turkey, nos. 61442/00 and 61445/00, § 45, 31 May 2005).
• EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 11798/03

  TUTAR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

  The Court has examined several cases against Turkey in which it has found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention based on the fact that, inter alia, the State Security Courts used the same formal reasons for the applicants' continued detention without explaining their specific relevance in each case (see, for example, Hasan Ceylan v. Turkey, no. 58398/00, 23 May 2006, Pakkan v. Turkey, no. 13017/02, 31 October 2006, Gıyasettin Altun v. Turkey, no. 73038/01, 24 May 2005, Tutar v. Turkey, no. 11798/03, 10 October 2006, Mehmet Günes v. Turkey, no. 61908/00, 21 September 2006, Acunbay, cited above, and Tamer and Others, cited above).
• EGMR, 30.01.2007 - 45977/99

  ÇOBANOGLU ET BUDAK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

  The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in the ÇobanoÄŸlu and Budak judgment[1] v. Turkey, (no. 45977/99, §§ 29-30, 30 January 2007).
• EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 41964/98

  CENNET AYHAN AND MEHMET SALIH AYHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

  There is no obligation to have recourse to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see, among others, Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan v. Turkey, no. 41964/98, § 64, 27 June 2006).
• EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 21768/02

  SELÇUK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

  Although, in general, the expression "the state of evidence" may be a relevant factor for the existence and persistence of serious indications of guilt, in the present case it nevertheless, alone, cannot justify a length of preventive detention of over two years and three months, in particular, having regard to the young age of the applicants (see, in particular, Selçuk v. Turkey, no. 21768/02, §§ 34-36, 10 January 2006, Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, Mansur v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-B, § 55).
• EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 235/02

  TAMER ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

  It therefore had the opportunity to end the applicants' alleged lengthy detention and to avoid or to redress an alleged breach of the Convention (see Acunbay, cited above, § 48, and Tamer and Others v. Turkey, no. 235/02, § 28, 22 June 2006).
• EGMR, 23.05.2006 - 58398/00

  HASAN CEYLAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

  The Court has examined several cases against Turkey in which it has found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention based on the fact that, inter alia, the State Security Courts used the same formal reasons for the applicants' continued detention without explaining their specific relevance in each case (see, for example, Hasan Ceylan v. Turkey, no. 58398/00, 23 May 2006, Pakkan v. Turkey, no. 13017/02, 31 October 2006, Gıyasettin Altun v. Turkey, no. 73038/01, 24 May 2005, Tutar v. Turkey, no. 11798/03, 10 October 2006, Mehmet Günes v. Turkey, no. 61908/00, 21 September 2006, Acunbay, cited above, and Tamer and Others, cited above).
• EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 13017/02

  PAKKAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 61908/00

  MEHMET GÜNES v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 73038/01

  ALTIN v. TURKEY

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 25060/02

  ERDAL ASLAN c. TURQUIE

  A cet égard, il faut se rappeler d'emblée que, par le passé, dans plusieurs affaires ayant impliqué des cours de sûreté de l'Etat, la circonstance que celles-ci décidaient du maintien en détention d'un requérant à partir de raisonnements stéréotypés - comme en l'espèce (paragraphes 105 et 109 ci-dessus) - a été l'un des éléments clés non seulement pour conclure à la violation de l'article 5 § 3, mais également pour mettre en doute les perspectives de succès d'une voie d'opposition s'agissant de combattre de tels raisonnements (Kosti et autres c. Turquie, no 74321/01, § 22, 3 mai 2007).
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 19637/05

  INAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court refers to its constant case-law that the Turkish legal system did not offer a remedy which was genuinely adversarial or which could offer reasonable prospects of success (see, for example, Kosti and Others v. Turkey, no. 74321/01, § 22, 3 May 2007; BaÄŸrıyanık v. Turkey, no. 43256/04, §§ 50 and 51, 5 June 2007; DoÄŸan Yalçın v. Turkey, no. 15041/03, § 43, 19 February 2008).
• EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 16777/06

  CAN AND GÜMÜS v. TURKEY

  As regards the applicants" complaint of an absence of an effective remedy under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, again the Court refers to its constant case-law that the Turkish legal system did not offer a remedy which was genuinely adversarial or which could offer reasonable prospects of success (see Kosti and Others v. Turkey, no. 74321/01, § 22, 3 May 2007; BaÄŸrıyanık v. Turkey, no. 43256/04, §§ 50 and 51, 5 June 2007; DoÄŸan Yalçın v. Turkey, no. 15041/03, § 43, 19 February 2008).

• EGMR, 06.05.2008 - 20817/04

  NART v. TURKEY

  It concluded that Article 298 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be considered as an effective remedy and found a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kosti and Others v. Turkey, no. 74321/01, §§ 21-25, 3 May 2007; Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, §§ 71-72, ECHR 2005-IV).
• EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 4018/07

  MEHMET ÖZCAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  A cet égard, la Cour rappelle que, par le passé, dans plusieurs affaires similaires, la circonstance que les juridictions répressives décidaient du maintien en détention d'un requérant à partir de raisonnements stéréotypés - comme en l'espèce (paragraphe 21 ci-dessus) - a été l'un des éléments clés non seulement pour conclure à la violation de l'article 5 § 3, mais également pour mettre en doute les perspectives de succès d'une voie d'opposition s'agissant de combattre de tels raisonnements (Kosti et autres c. Turquie, no 74321/01, 3 mai 2007).
• EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 1968/07

  SEYHMUS UGUR ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  A cet égard, la Cour rappelle que, par le passé, dans plusieurs affaires similaires, la circonstance que les juridictions répressives décidaient du maintien en détention d'un requérant à partir de raisonnements stéréotypés - comme en l'espèce (paragraphe 21 ci-dessus) - a été l'un des éléments clés non seulement pour conclure à la violation de l'article 5 § 3, mais également pour mettre en doute les perspectives de succès d'une voie d'opposition s'agissant de combattre de tels raisonnements (Kosti et autres c. Turquie, no 74321/01, 3 mai 2007).
• EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 56493/07

  KÜRÜM c. TURQUIE

  A cet égard, la Cour rappelle que, par le passé, dans plusieurs affaires similaires, la circonstance que les juridictions répressives décidaient du maintien en détention d'un requérant à partir de raisonnements stéréotypés - comme en l'espèce (paragraphe 6 ci-dessus) - a été l'un des éléments clés non seulement pour conclure à la violation de l'article 5 § 3, mais également pour mettre en doute les perspectives de succès d'une voie d'opposition s'agissant de combattre de tels raisonnements (Kosti et autres c. Turquie, no 74321/01, § 22, 3 mai 2007).
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 35257/04

  BAHÇELI v. TURKEY

  As regards the Government's non-exhaustion objection, the Court notes that it has already examined and rejected both aspects of this contention in previous cases (see, in particular, Kosti and Others v. Turkey, no. 74321/01, §§ 19-24, 3 May 2007; Mehmet Sah Çelik v. Turkey, no. 48545/99, §§ 22-31, 24 July 2007; TamamboÄŸa and Gül v. Turkey, no. 1636/02, §§ 27-29, 29 November 2007; Ertürk v. Turkey, no. 15259/02, §§ 21-22, 12 April 2005; Tutar v. Turkey, no. 11798/03, §§ 12-14, 10 October 2006).
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 41967/02

  AYDOGAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  As to Mr Ä°seri, Mr Evren, Mr Varol and Mr Öztürk, the Court reiterates that a person may not claim to be a victim of a violation of the right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the Convention where the criminal proceedings have been halted by a discontinuation (see Kosti and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 74321/01, 3 May 2007).
• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 7987/07

  ATSIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  However, examining the overall duration of the subsequent proceedings under consideration - a period which does not seem prima facie unduly long in the light of the case-law of the Convention organs - and taking into account the judgment adopted on 16 January 2007 by the Court in relation to application no. 8147/02, where a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was found as regards the proceedings which had lasted approximately fourteen years at that point, the Court considers that the remaining length of the proceedings has not been excessive (see Mariniello v. Italy (dec.), no. 36012/97, 28 September 1999, and Kosti and Others v. Turkey, no. 74321/01, §§ 32-37, 3 May 2007).
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 29361/07

  SAHAP DOGAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 5346/03

  MÜNIRE DEMIREL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 18949/04

  BLAGOY v. UKRAINE