Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ÖZDEN BILGIN v. TURKEY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 8610/02

  The persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a sine qua non for the validity of the continued detention, but after a certain lapse of time, it no longer suffices; the Court must then establish whether the other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty (see, among other authorities, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 77, 26 July 2001, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 8610/02

  Finally, although, in general, the expression "the state of the 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 the length of the detention of which the applicant complains (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 43, Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, and Mansur v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-B, § 55).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 8610/02

  In this connection, the Court further reiterates that the Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for refusing bail: the risk that the accused will fail to appear for trial; the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice or commit further offences or cause public disorder (see, in particular, Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 59, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).

• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 8610/02

  In so far as the Government suggest that the applicant had failed to comply with the six months rule, the Court recalls that if an applicant submits her complaints to the Court while she is still in detention, the case cannot be dismissed as being out of time (see, in particular, Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

  SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 8610/02

  It has therefore lasted around eleven years in total (see, in particular, Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 23-36, 16 January 2007).
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 8610/02

  The persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a sine qua non for the validity of the continued detention, but after a certain lapse of time, it no longer suffices; the Court must then establish whether the other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty (see, among other authorities, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 77, 26 July 2001, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 8610/02

  Finally, although, in general, the expression "the state of the 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 the length of the detention of which the applicant complains (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 43, Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, and Mansur v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-B, § 55).
• EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 11798/03

  TUTAR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 8610/02

  As regards the complaint concerning the length of the applicant's remand in custody, the Court reiterates that it has already examined and rejected the Government's similar objections regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies in previous cases (see, in particular, Tutar v. Turkey, no. 11798/03, §§ 12-14, 10 October 2006).
• EGMR, 29.03.2005 - 47117/99

  EGE v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 8610/02

  As to the complaint relating to the length of the applicant's detention in police custody, the Court reiterates that, according to the established case-law of the Convention organs, where there is no domestic remedy available, the six-month period runs from the date of the act alleged to constitute a violation of the Convention; however, where it concerns a continuing situation, the period of six months runs from the end of the situation concerned (see, among other authorities, Ege v. Turkey (dec.), no. 47117/99, 10 February 2004).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.11.2016 - 39324/98

  DEMIREL AND 195 OTHER CASES AGAINST TURKEY

  8610/02.
• EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 1915/03

  [ENG]

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in cases raising similar issues to those in the present application (see, for example, Özden Bilgin v. Turkey, no. 8610/02, § 32, 14 June 2007; TamamboÄŸa and Gül, § 37, cited above; Hasan Ceylan v. Turkey, no. 58398/00, § 28, 23 May 2006; Dereci v. Turkey, no. 77845/01, 24 May 2005; TaciroÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 25324/02, 2 February 2006).
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 29287/02

  AYHAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court notes that it has already examined and rejected the Government's similar objections regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies in previous cases (see, in particular, Özden Bilgin v. Turkey, no. 8610/02, § 21, 14 June 2007, Tamer and Others v. Turkey, no. 235/02, § 28, 22 June 2006, and Kosti and Others v. Turkey, no. 74321/01, §§ 19-24, 3 May 2007).
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 33155/04

  DOGRU v. TURKEY

  The Court reiterates that where no domestic remedy is available, the six-month period runs from the date of the act alleged to constitute a violation of the Convention (Yüksektepe v. Turkey, no. 62227/00, § 31, 24 October 2006, and Özden Bilgin v. Turkey, no. 8610/02, § 23, 14 June 2007).
• EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 4238/02

  KELEKÇILER v. TURKEY

  The Court reiterates that, according to the established case-law of the Convention organs, where there is no domestic remedy available, the six-month period runs from the date of the act alleged to constitute a violation of the Convention; however, where it concerns a continuing situation, the period of six months runs from the end of the situation concerned (see, among other authorities, Yüksektepe v. Turkey, no. 62227/00, § 31, 24 October 2006, and Özden Bilgin v. Turkey, no. 8610/02, § 23, 14 June 2007).