Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AYDEMIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 6 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (23)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 9097/05

  However, as the Court has held on many occasions, this rule is subject to exceptions, which may be justified by the particular circumstances of each case (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, 22 May 2001, and Ä°çyer, cited above).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 9097/05

  57984/00, 60226/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00 and 68563/01, ECHR 2002-IX; Charzynski v. Poland, no. 15212/03, and Tadeusz Michalak v. Poland, no. 24549/03, decisions of 1 March 2005).
• EGMR, 12.01.2006 - 18888/02

  IÇYER c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 9097/05

  Yet, the rule is based on the assumption that the domestic system provides an effective remedy in respect of the alleged breach (Ä°çyer v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18888/02, 12 January 2006; Latak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, § 75, 12 October 2010).

• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 9097/05

  In particular, the Court has previously departed from this general rule in cases against Italy, Croatia, Slovakia and Poland concerning remedies in respect of the excessive length of proceedings (see, Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII; Andrásik and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 52070/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 9097/05

  Yet, the rule is based on the assumption that the domestic system provides an effective remedy in respect of the alleged breach (Ä°çyer v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18888/02, 12 January 2006; Latak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, § 75, 12 October 2010).
• EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01

  NOGOLICA c. CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 9097/05

  In particular, the Court has previously departed from this general rule in cases against Italy, Croatia, Slovakia and Poland concerning remedies in respect of the excessive length of proceedings (see, Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII; Andrásik and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00

  ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 9097/05

  57984/00, 60226/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00 and 68563/01, ECHR 2002-IX; Charzynski v. Poland, no. 15212/03, and Tadeusz Michalak v. Poland, no. 24549/03, decisions of 1 March 2005).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 24549/03

  MICHALAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 9097/05

  57984/00, 60226/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00 and 68563/01, ECHR 2002-IX; Charzynski v. Poland, no. 15212/03, and Tadeusz Michalak v. Poland, no. 24549/03, decisions of 1 March 2005).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 21383/07

  KONAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  9097/05, 9491/05, 9498/05, 9500/05, 9505/05, and 9509/05, 9 November 2010); Çetin v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 47768/09, §§ 7-15, 14 June 2016); and Güngör v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 14486/09, §§ 12-16, 4 July 2017).

  9097/05, 9491/05, 9498/05, 9500/05, 9505/05 and 9509/05, 9 November 2010; Aksoy v.Turkey (dec.), no. 8498/05 and 158 others, 11 January 2011; Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 9486/05, 25 January 2011; Güler v. Turkey (dec.), no. 14377/05, 25 January 2011; and Çetin v. Turkey (dec.), no. 47768/09, 14 June 2016).

• EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 42728/08

  BABAYIGIT v. TURKEY

  9097/05, 9491/05, 9498/05, 9500/05, 9505/05 and 9509/05, 9 November 2010); Yalçınkaya and Others v. Turkey (nos. 25764/09 and 18 others, §§ 12-13, 1 October 2013, and Çetin v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 47768/09, §§ 7-15, 14 June 2016).

  In assessing the effectiveness of the new remedy, the Court had regard to sample decisions submitted by the Government, which indicated that following the lodging of objections, enforcement judges had re-evaluated the evidence in the case file and annulled the disciplinary sanctions in dispute, clearing the respective prisoners of all consequences of the offence (see Aydemir and others nos. 9097/05, 9491/05, 9498/05, 9500/05, 9505/05 and 9509/05, 9 November 2010; Aksoy v.Turkey (dec.), no. 8498/05 and 158 others, 11 January 2011; Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 9486/05, 25 January 2011; Güler v. Turkey (dec.), no. 14377/05, 25 January 2011; and Çetin v. Turkey (dec.), no. 47768/09, 14 June 2016).

• EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 29899/07

  ÇETIN AND GEDIK v. TURKEY

  9097/05, 9491/05, 9498/05, 9500/05, 9505/05 and 9509/05, 9 November 2010); Yalçınkaya and Others v. Turkey (nos. 25764/09 and 18 others, §§ 12-13, 1 October 2013); Çetin v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 47768/09, §§ 7-15, 14 June 2016); and Güngör v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 14486/09, §§ 12-16, 4 July 2017).

  9097/05, 9491/05, 9498/05, 9500/05, 9505/05 and 9509/05, 9 November 2010; Aksoy v.Turkey (dec.), no. 8498/05 and 158 others, 11 January 2011; Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 9486/05 and 59 others, 25 January 2011; Güler v. Turkey (dec.), no. 14377/05 and 49 others, 25 January 2011; and Çetin v. Turkey (dec.), no. 47768/09, 14 June 2016).

• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 37546/08

  AKSOY v. TURKEY

  9097/05, 9491/05, 9498/05, 9500/05, 9505/05 and 9509/05, 9 November 2010), Yalçınkaya and Others v. Turkey (nos. 25764/09 and 18 others, §§ 12-13, 1 October 2013), Çetin v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 47768/09, §§ 7-15, 14 June 2016) and Güngör v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 14486/09, §§ 12-16, 4 July 2017).

  In assessing the effectiveness of the new remedy, the Court had regard to sample decisions submitted by the Government, which indicated that following the lodging of objections, enforcement judges had re-evaluated the evidence in the case file and annulled the disciplinary sanctions in dispute, clearing the respective prisoners of all consequences of the offence (see Aydemir and others nos. 9097/05, 9491/05, 9498/05, 9500/05, 9505/05 and 9509/05, 9 November 2010; Aksoy v.Turkey (dec.), no. 8498/05 and 158 others, 11 January 2011; Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 9486/05, 25 January 2011; Güler v. Turkey (dec.), no. 14377/05, 25 January 2011; and Çetin v. Turkey (dec.), no. 47768/09, 14 June 2016).

• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 43641/05

  AYDIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  9097/05, 9491/05, 9498/05, 9500/05, 9505/05 and 9509/05, 9 November 2010); Yalçınkaya and Others v. Turkey (nos. 25764/09 and 18 others, §§ 12-13, 1 October 2013, Çetin v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 47768/09, §§ 7-15, 14 June 2016); and Güngör v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 14486/09, §§ 12-16, 4 July 2017).

  9097/05, 9491/05, 9498/05, 9500/05, 9505/05 and 9509/05, 9 November 2010; Aksoy v.Turkey (dec.), no. 8498/05 and 158 others, 11 January 2011; Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 9486/05, 25 January 2011; Güler v. Turkey (dec.), no. 14377/05, 25 January 2011; and Çetin v. Turkey (dec.), no. 47768/09, 14 June 2016).

• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 7886/08

  ÇABUK v. TURKEY

  9097/05, 9491/05, 9498/05, 9500/05, 9505/05 and 9509/05, 9 November 2010); Çetin v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 47768/09, §§ 7-15, 14 June 2016); Güngör v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 14486/09, §§ 12-16, 4 July 2017); and Yalçınkaya and Others v. Turkey (nos. 25764/09 and 18 others, §§ 12-13, 1 October 2013).

  In assessing the effectiveness of the new remedy, the Court had regard to sample decisions submitted by the Government, which indicated that following the lodging of objections, enforcement judges had re-evaluated the evidence in the case file and annulled the disciplinary sanctions in dispute, clearing the respective prisoners of all consequences of the offence (see Aydemir and others nos. 9097/05, 9491/05, 9498/05, 9500/05, 9505/05 and 9509/05, 9 November 2010; Aksoy v.Turkey (dec.), no. 8498/05 and 158 others, 11 January 2011; Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 9486/05, 25 January 2011; Güler v. Turkey (dec.), no. 14377/05, 25 January 2011; and Çetin v. Turkey (dec.), no. 47768/09, 14 June 2016).

• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 47768/09

  ÇETIN v. TURKEY

  9097/05, 9491/05, 9498/05, 9500/05, 9505/05, and 9509/05, 9 November 2010).

  9097/05, 9491/05, 9498/05, 9500/05, 9505/05, and 9509/05, 9 November 2010).

• EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 8498/05

  [ENG]

  9097/05, 9491/05, 9498/05, 9500/05, 9505/05 and 9509/05, 9 November 2010.
• EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 14377/05

  GÜLER v. TURKEY

  9097/05, 9491/05, 9498/05, 9500/05, 9505/05 and 9509/05, 9 November 2010).
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 14486/09

  GÜNGÖR c. TURQUIE

  Quant à la seconde partie de ce grief, à savoir l'absence alléguée d'une assistance juridique et d'une audience, la Cour se réfère à sa décision Aydemir et autres c. Turquie ((déc.), nos 9097/05, 9491/05, 9498/05, 9500/05, 9505/05, et 9509/05, 9 novembre 2010), par laquelle elle a considéré qu'il convenait d'exercer la nouvelle voie de recours devant le juge de l'exécution des peines, instaurée par une modification législative, permettant aux personnes concernées d'obtenir le réexamen d'une sanction disciplinaire.
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 16128/04

  SÜRMELI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 9486/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 15661/07

  SAVASÇIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 54769/13

  BERKER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 29.09.2015 - 45601/09

  ÖZBIL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 23772/13

  ÇELIK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 15523/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 61042/14

  X v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 38674/07

  BOZKURT v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 14963/08

  KUTLU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 9944/06

  ALEMDAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 19474/10

  PAKSOY AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 24702/14

  KISAKOL v. TURKEY