Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=17.10.2006&Aktenzeichen=72000/01
Timestamp: 2019-05-21 20:06:15+00:00
Document Index: 147459542

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 3', 'art. 13', 'art. 6', 'art. 6', 'art. 6', 'art. 6', '§ 165', '§ 73', '§ 165', '§ 73', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 165', '§ 73', '§ 165', '§ 73', '§ 44', '§ 43', '§ 59', '§ 73', '§ 60', '§ 74', '§ 99', '§ 73', '§ 63', '§ 165', '§ 99', '§ 73', '§ 63', "l'article 3", '§ 76', '§ 56', '§ 10', '§ 99', '§ 73', '§ 63', '§ 165', '§ 99', '§ 73', '§ 63']

EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 72000/01 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2006,65227
EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 72000/01 (https://dejure.org/2006,65227)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.10.2006 - 72000/01 (https://dejure.org/2006,65227)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. Januar 2006 - 72000/01 (https://dejure.org/2006,65227)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,65227) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation de l'art. 3 Violation de l'art. 13 Violation de l'art. 6-1 (composition de la cour de sûreté de l'Etat) Violation de l'art. 6-1 et 6-3 Violation de l'art. 6-1 (durée) Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 6 (autres griefs) Dommage matériel et préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire (globale) Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)
Die Verwertung solcher Beweismittel, die infolge eines Verstoßes gegen eines der durch die Konvention garantierten Kernrechte erlangt wurden, wirft stets schwerwiegende Fragen in Bezug auf die Fairness des Verfahrens auf (siehe Içöz ./. Türkei (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 54919/00, 9. Januar 2003; Jalloh , a.a.O., Rdnr. 99, 104; Göçmen ./. Türkei , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 72000/01, Rdnr. 73, 17.
EGMR - 75297/11 (anhängig)
ÇADIRCI AND KÖMÜRCÜ v. TURKEY and 1 other application
Application no. 75297/11 also concerns the use of the applicants" police statements allegedly obtained under ill-treatment to convict them and the alleged absence of the applicants" lawyer during the investigative measures taken in the course of the preliminary investigation stage (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 165-166, ECHR 2010, and Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006 and see, mutatis mutandis, Hakan Duman v. Turkey, no. 28439/03, 23 March 2010).
Application no. 81535/12 also involves a complaint about the use by the trial court of the evidence given by the first applicant under alleged ill-treatment while in police custody (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 165-166, ECHR 2010, and Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006).
Having regard to the Court's conclusions under Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the same applicants in Karagöz and others v. Turkey (nos. 14352/05, 38484/05 and 38513/05, 13 July 2010) and Müdet Kömürcü v. Turkey (no. 40160/05, 21 July 2009) judgments, did the applicants have a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the Istanbul Assize Court use the police statements taken from the applicants under ill-treatment? Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in this respect (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 165-166, ECHR 2010, and Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006)?.
22978/05, §§ 165-166, ECHR 2010, and Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006)?.
Dans le cas contraire, la lecture lors de l'audience de pareils procès-verbaux à titre de preuve est prohibée et, dès lors, on ne saurait y puiser un motif pour fonder une condamnation (Kolu c. Turquie, no 35811/97, § 44, 2 août 2005, et Göçmen c. Turquie, no 72000/01, § 43, 17 octobre 2006).
La Cour relève à cet égard que tout au long du procès les requérants ont cherché en vain à contester les actes d'enquête accomplis lors de leur garde à vue (paragraphe 20 ci-dessus ; voir, mutatis mutandis, Örs et autres c. Turquie, no 46213/99, § 59, 20 juin 2006, et Göçmen c. Turquie, no 72000/01, § 73, 17 octobre 2006).
Il suffit de constater qu'une partie de l'établissement des faits effectué par les juridictions pénales est fondée sur ces actes obtenus par le recours aux mauvais traitements et en l'absence d'un avocat (voir, mutatis mutandis, Örs et autres, précité, § 60, et Göçmen c. Turquie, no 72000/01, § 74, 17 octobre 2006).
However, particular considerations apply in respect of the use in criminal proceedings of evidence obtained in breach of Article 3. The use of such evidence, secured as a result of a violation of one of the core and absolute rights guaranteed by the Convention, always raises serious issues as to the fairness of the proceedings, even if the admission of such evidence was not decisive in securing a conviction (see Ä°çöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003; Jalloh, cited above, §§ 99 and 104; Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006; Harutyunyan, cited above, § 63; and Gäfgen, cited above, § 165).
The use of such evidence, obtained as a result of a violation of one of the core rights guaranteed by the Convention, raises serious issues as to the fairness of the proceedings (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 99 and 104, ECHR 2006-...; Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, § 73, 17 October 2006; and Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, § 63, ECHR 2007-...).
Ils allèguent que, en l'absence de justification de la part des autorités nationales, la présomption que la force utilisée a été excessive suffit pour estimer qu'il y a eu violation matérielle de l'article 3 de la Convention (Rehbock c. Slovénie, no 29462/95, § 76, CEDH 2000-XII, et Göçmen c. Turquie, no 72000/01, § 56, 17 octobre 2006).
It would appear that the expert concluded, in light of the degree of scabbing, that at least some of the applicant's injuries were relatively old and pre-dated the arrest (compare Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, §§ 10, 11, 56, 17 October 2006).
La Cour réitère sa jurisprudence selon laquelle l'utilisation d'éléments de preuve recueillis par la violation de l'un des droits absolus constituant le noyau dur de la Convention jette toujours de graves doutes quant à l'équité de la procédure, même si le fait d'avoir admis ces éléments comme preuves n'a pas été décisif pour la condamnation du suspect (Jalloh c. Allemagne [GC], no 54810/00, §§ 99 et 104, CEDH 2006-IX ; Göçmen c. Turquie, no 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 octobre 2006, Haroutyounian c. Arménie, no 36549/03, § 63, CEDH 2007-III, et Gäfgen c. Allemagne [GC], no 22978/05, § 165, CEDH 2010).
The use of evidence obtained by a measure found to be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention always raises serious issues as to the fairness of the proceedings even if the admission of such evidence was not decisive in securing the conviction (see Ä°çöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003; Jalloh, cited above, §§ 99 and 104; Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, § 73, 17 October 2006; and Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, § 63, ECHR 2007-VIII).
EGMR - 5592/10 (anhängig)
UYANiK v. TURKEY