Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/29279.95-en-20010925/
Timestamp: 2020-08-14 17:57:47
Document Index: 213447170

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 6', 'Art. 6', '§ 31', '§ 25', '§ 39', '§ 45', '§ 49', '§ 27', '§ 73', '§ 58', '§ 48', '§ 67', '§ 32', '§ 36', '§ 26', '§ 32', '§ 87', '§ 74', '§ 42', '§ 30', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'art. 6', 'art. 6', 'art. 35', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 5']

SAHINER v. TURKEY / ECHR
SAHINER v. TURKEY View
AppNr 29279/95
Citations 5-36-16-3-c1013P7-4
Application Number 29279/95
Conclusion Violation of Art. 6-1 as regards the length of the proceedings ; Violation of Art. 6-1 as regards independence and impartiality ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (as regards independence and impartiality) ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (as regards length) ; Costs and expenses partial award
Law at Issue Constitution, Articles 138, 139 and 145 ; Martial Law Act (Law no. 1402 of 13 May 1971), Article 11 ; Act Governing the Formation and Proceedings of Martial Law Courts (Law no. 353 of 26 October 1963), Article 4 ; Military Judges Act (Law no. 357 of 26 October 1963), Articles 12 and 29
Strasbourg Case Law Bulut v. Austria judgment of 22 February 1996, Reports 1996-II, p. 356, § 31 ; Cankoçak v. Turkey, nos. 25182/94 and 26956/95, §§ 25, 26, 32 and 37, ECHR 2001-... Çiraklar v. Turkey judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3073, § 39, p. 3074, § 45 ; Demicoli v. Malta judgment of 27 August 1991, Series A no. 210, p. 20, § 49 ; Fey v. Austria judgment of 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255-A, p. 12, § 27 ; Findlay v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 February 1997, Reports 1997-I, p. 281, § 73 ; Gautrin and Others v. France judgment of 20 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, pp. 1030-31, § 58 ; Hauschild v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, § 48 ; Incal v. Turkey judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1571, §§ 67, 70, 71, 72 and 82 ; Langborger v. Sweden judgment of 22 June 1989 Series A no. 155, p. 16, § 32 and § 36 ; Mitap and Müftüoglu v. Turkey judgment of 25 March 1996 (Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, pp. 410-411, §§ 26-28 and p. 411, § 32 ; Mitap and Müftüoglu v. Turkey decision of 8 December 1994, applications nos. 15530/89 and 15531/89, Reports 1996-II, pp. 422-425, §§ 87-110 ; Pelissier and Sassi v. France [GC], p. 301, § 74, no. 25444/94, ECHR 1999-II ; Sramek v. Austria judgment of 22 October 1984, Series A no. 84, p. 20, § 42 Thomann v. Switzerland judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, p. 815, § 30
Keywords "(Art. 35-3) RATIONE TEMPORIS" "(Art. 6) CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS" "(Art. 6-1) IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL" "(Art. 6-1) INDEPENDENT TRIBUNAL" "(Art. 6-1) REASONABLE TIME"
30 (art. 6) criminal proceedings
28 (art. 6-1) reasonable time
22 (art. 35-3) ratione temporis
21 Pecuniary damage - claim rejected
1 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Art. 6-1 and 6-3-c)
1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (Art. 5-3)
DONDU BILGIC v. TURKEY
GÖKCEK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
SARI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
KAHRAMAN YILMAZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY