Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DILEK GENÇ v. TÜRKIYE

  Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GENÇ v. TURKEY and 1 other application

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (35)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  FONTES MOREIRA FERREIRA c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2025 - 74601/14

  The general principles concerning the right to a reasoned judgment have been summarized in Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) ([GC], no. 19867/12, § 84, 11 July 2017) and in Ayetullah Ay v. Turkey, (nos. 29084/07 and 1191/08, § 128, 27 October 2020).
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 25551/05

  KOROLEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2025 - 74601/14

  The severity of the alleged violation should be assessed, taking account of both the applicant's subjective perceptions and what is objectively at stake in a particular case (see Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010, and Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye, nos.
• EGMR, 14.02.2019 - 5556/10

  SA-CAPITAL OY v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2025 - 74601/14

  However, both the protection of competition - which is at issue in the present case to a certain, albeit limited, extent - and the aim of maintaining public order are general interests of society which are normally protected by criminal law (for the applicability of the criminal head of Article 6 to an offence which is intended to guarantee the protection of public order, see Asadbeyli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 3653/05 and 5 others, § 153, 11 December 2012, and for proceedings dealing with breaches of competition law, see SA-Capital Oy v. Finland, no. 5556/10, § 68, 14 February 2019, with further references).

• EGMR, 05.07.2018 - 24/11

  CENTRO DEMARZIO S.R.L. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2025 - 74601/14

  24/11/2014.
• EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 12096/14

  ROLA v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2025 - 74601/14

  The Government did not provide any element which could cast doubt on the veracity of that submission, and the Constitutional Court did not dismiss the individual applications lodged by the applicant on the basis of a lack of significant disadvantage on account of her failure to proffer any explanations as to the amount of the fines or the impact they may have had on her (see Rola v. Slovenia, nos. 12096/14 and 39335/16, § 44, 4 June 2019).
• EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 13079/03

  RUOTSALAINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2025 - 74601/14

  The last subsection of section 6 of Law no. 2559, which provides for the imposition of an increased fine in the event of reoffending (see Ruotsalainen v. Finland, no. 13079/03, § 46, 16 June 2009), also attests to the punitive purpose of the sanction.
• EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 29084/07

  AYETULLAH AY v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2025 - 74601/14

  The general principles concerning the right to a reasoned judgment have been summarized in Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) ([GC], no. 19867/12, § 84, 11 July 2017) and in Ayetullah Ay v. Turkey, (nos. 29084/07 and 1191/08, § 128, 27 October 2020).
• EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 3468/20

  SUBASI c. TURQUIE et 29 autres affaires

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2025 - 74601/14

  3468/20 and 18 others, § 62, 6 December 2022).
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 53208/19

  ÇIFTCI c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2025 - 74601/14

  Rn. 56 The Court notes that it has already examined similar objections raised by the Government in previous cases and rejected them (see, Mehmet Çiftci v. Turkey, no. 53208/19, § 26, 16 November 2021, Demirtaş and Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu v. Türkiye, nos. 10207/21 and 10209/21, §§ 77-78, 6 June 2023, Kural v. Türkiye, no. 84388/17, § 54, 19 March 2024, and Namık Yüksel v. Türkiye, no. 28791/10, § 35, 27 August 2024).
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 5605/04

  KARPENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2025 - 74601/14

  Rn. 81 In view of the above-mentioned domestic legal framework and practice, which fell short of the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the examination of witnesses before the administrative courts, the Court takes the view that requiring the applicant to obtain written statements from her witnesses before a notary public and then submit them to the İzmir Administrative Court in order to effectively challenge the evidence forming the basis for the fines would hardly be compatible with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, since it would mean that a procedure that is prima facie contrary to the guarantees of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention would continue to persist in the absence of any reason, let alone a good one (see Karpenko v. Russia, no. 5605/04, § 70, 13 March 2012 in the context of prosecution witnesses).
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 3653/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 53150/12

  CUTEAN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 20.06.2023 - 36705/16

  MARGARI v. GREECE
• EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 40107/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 37272/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 18774/09

  RINCK c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 84388/17

  KURAL v. TURKEY
• SG Berlin, 14.09.1955 - 15/12
• EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 28791/10

  YÜKSEL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 07.09.2021 - 40761/19

  BARTOLO v. MALTA
• EGMR, 10.12.2020 - 68954/13

  EDIZIONI DEL ROMA SOCIETA COOPERATIVA A.R.L. c. ITALIE et 1 autre affaire
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 22003/12

  BULIGA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 32993/02

  HANNU LEHTINEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 06.06.2023 - 10207/21

  DEMIRTAS c. TURQUIE et 1 autre affaire
• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
• EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 18640/10

  GRANDE STEVENS c. ITALIE et 4 autres requêtes
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR - 68271/14 (anhängig)

  HALL v. ICELAND
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 1385/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 61177/09

  KORKUT ET AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL TURQUIE c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 11529/02

  HÜSEYIN TURAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 50514/13

  SAQUETTI IGLESIAS c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 17.03.2020 - 75845/12

  SIMSEK, ANDIÇ ET BOGATEKIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.02.2013 - 11411/11

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 48657/06

  ÖZMURAT INSAAT ELEKTRIK NAKLIYAT TEMIZLIK SAN. VE TIC. LTD. STI. v. TURKEY

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.10.2026 - 33372/19

  GÜR v. TURKEY

  In particular, domestic courts must ensure that the applicant was effectively heard and that their decisions are supported by relevant and sufficient reasoning (see Erkapić v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, §§ 74-89, 25 April 2013, and Dilek Genç v. Türkiye, nos. 74601/14 and 78295/14, § 83, 21 January 2025).
• EGMR, 03.02.2026 - 58004/17

  MACOVEI c. ROUMANIE

  Rn. 72 Albeit the above-mentioned aims constitute general interests of society that may also be protected by the Criminal Code, this is insufficient of itself to bring breaches such as the applicant's (see paragraph 70 above) within the scope of the criminal limb of Article 6 of the Convention (compare Gestur Jónsson and Ragnar Halldór Hall, cited above, § 88 and 91; Dilek Genç v. Türkiye, nos. 74601/14 and 78295/14, §§ 37-40, 21 January 2025; and Păcurar, cited above, §§ 127-28).
• EGMR - 31947/25 (anhängig)

  CANDAR v. TÜRKİYE and 22 other applications

  74601/14 and 78295/14, §§ 77-79, 21 January 2025)? In connection with the question regarding witness evidence above and also on account of the fact that the administrative courts relied on evidence presented in parallel criminal procedures, and conducted their judicial review by way of written procedure, was the applicants' right to an oral and public hearing respected? Given the nature of the dispute, and evidentiary issues raised by the applicants in the proceedings and what was at stake, did Article 6 § 1 of the Convention require that a hearing be held by the administrative courts irrespective of the parties' explicit request (Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, §§ 39-42, ECHR 2006-VI; Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá, cited above, §§ 208-211; compare and contrast with Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 74, ECHR 2007-II; Jehovah's Witnesses v. Finland, no. 31172/19, §§ 47-58, 9 May 2023; and Dilek Genç, cited above, § 70)? In respect of those applicants whose dismissal from the civil service and/or the judiciary was based, inter alia, on their membership of, directorship in, or donations to associations, foundations or trade unions, does such dismissal amount to an interference with their rights under Article 11 of the Convention? If so, was that interference justified under the second paragraph of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Yüksel Yalçınkaya, cited above, §§ 384-402)?.