CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 novembre 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 146 November 2011 Altınok v. Turkey - 31610/08 Judgment 29.11.2011 [Section II] Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Measures of a general character Respondent State required to provide effective remedy to contest detention pending trial and to claim compensation   Facts – Before the European Court the applicant complained that the lodging of an objection against a decision by the assize court to refuse his request for release and to order his continued detention had been ineffective. He also complained that he had not had an effective remedy for claiming compensation. Law – The Court found a violation of Article 5 §   4 because the remedy provided for in domestic law had not observed the principle of equality of arms between the parties, and a violation of Article 5 §   5 because the compensatory remedy referred to could not be regarded as effective. Article   46: The violation of the applicant’s right under Article 5 §§   4 and   5 to an effective remedy for challenging his continued detention and seeking compensation had originated in a systemic problem. In relation to Article 5 §   4, the problem concerned the failure to provide detainees or their lawyers with a copy of the public prosecutor’s opinion during the examination of an objection. In relation to Article 5 §   5, it concerned the total lack of any compensatory remedy in such cases. Some three hundred applications concerning similar complaints that were likely to give rise to findings of a violation of the Convention were currently pending before the Court. The deficiencies in domestic law noted in the present case could give rise to numerous further applications in the future. This was an aggravating factor as regards the State’s responsibility under the Convention for a past or present situation. The Court observed that general measures at national level were undoubtedly called for in the execution of this judgment. (See also Resolution Res(2004)3 and Recommendation Rec(2004)6 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, both adopted on 12   May 2004.)   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes