Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CYPRUS v. TURKEY

  Art. 1, Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 4, Art. 4 Abs. 1, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 9, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, A... rt. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14+8, Art. 14, Art. 14+13, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 17, Art. 18, Art. 33, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3, Art. 34 MRK
  No violation of Art. 2 (missing persons) No violation of Art. 4 Violation of Art. 2 and 5 with regard to lack of effective investigation No violation of Art. 5 with regard to alleged detention Not necessary to examine Art. 3 6 8 13 14 and 17 Violation of Art. 3 ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHYPRE c. TURQUIE

  Art. 1, Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 4, Art. 4 Abs. 1, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 9, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, A... rt. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14+8, Art. 14, Art. 14+13, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 17, Art. 18, Art. 33, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3, Art. 34 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 2 (personnes disparues) Non-violation de l'art. 4 Violation des art. 2 et 5 du fait de l'absence d'enquête effective Non-violation de l'art. 5 du fait de la détention alléguée Non-lieu à examiner les art. 3 6 8 13 14 et 17 s'agissant ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• IRIS Merlin (Kurzinformation)

  Fall Zypern gegen die Türkei

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 25781/94

    305.  The Court recalls that in its Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 May 1985 (Series A no. 94), it accepted the applicants' argument that, irrespective of the relevance of Article 14, a complaint of discriminatory treatment could give rise to a separate issue under Article 3. It concluded on the merits that the difference of treatment complained of in that case did not denote any contempt or lack of respect for the personality of the applicants and that it was not designed to, and did not, humiliate or debase them (p. 42, §§ 90-92).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71

  KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 25781/94

  In the strict sense, accordingly, there is no denial of the right to education, which is the primary obligation devolving on a Contracting Party under the first sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (see the Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 23, pp. 25-26 § 52).
• EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 12750/87

  PHILIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 25781/94

    334.  The Court recalls that the Commission's decision declaring an application admissible determines the scope of the case brought before the Court; it is only within the framework so traced that the Court, once a case is duly referred to it, may take cognisance of all questions of fact or of law arising in the course of the proceedings (see the above-mentioned Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment, p. 63, § 157, and the Philis v. Greece judgment of 27 August 1991, Series A no. 209, p. 19, § 56).

 
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 25781/94

  It recalls in this connection that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force by agents of the State (see, mutatis mutandis , the McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 49, § 161, and the Kaya v. Turkey judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 329, § 105) or by non-State agents (see, mutatis mutandis , the Ergi v. Turkey judgment of 28 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1778, § 82; the Yasa v. Turkey judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2438, § 100; and Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 103, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 25781/94

    60.  The applicant Government refuted this assertion with reference, inter alia, to the Court's conclusions in its Loizidou v. Turkey judgment of 23 March 1995 ( preliminary objections ) (Series A no. 310) and to the reaction of the international community to the proclamation of the establishment of the "TRNC" in 1983, in particular the two resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council and the resolution of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers condemning this move in the strongest possible terms (see paragraph 14 above).
• EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

  BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 25781/94

  It must also satisfy a series of further requirements - independence, in particular of the executive; impartiality; duration of its members' terms of office; guarantees afforded by its procedure - several of which appear in the text of Article 6 § 1 (see, among other authorities, the Belilos v. Switzerland judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, p. 29, § 64).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 25781/94

  The existence of such measures does not improve the applicant Government's case concerning the alleged administrative practice of violating Article 6. It recalls in this connection that the applicability of Article 6 is premised on the existence of an arguable cause of action in domestic law (see the above-mentioned Lithgow and Others judgment, p. 70, § 192, and the Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, pp. 16-17, § 36).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 25781/94

    113.  The Court, for its part, endorses the application of this standard, all the more so since it was first articulated in the context of a previous inter-State case and has, since the date of the adoption of the judgment in that case, become part of the Court's established case-law (for a recent example, see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 25781/94

  It is especially in respect of the latter that a relative may claim directly to be a victim of the authorities' conduct (see Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 25781/94

  It recalls in this connection that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force by agents of the State (see, mutatis mutandis , the McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 49, § 161, and the Kaya v. Turkey judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 329, § 105) or by non-State agents (see, mutatis mutandis , the Ergi v. Turkey judgment of 28 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1778, § 82; the Yasa v. Turkey judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2438, § 100; and Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 103, ECHR 1999-IV).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 18.12.2008 - C-420/07

  GENERALANWÄLTIN JULIANE KOKOTT IST DER ANSICHT, DASS EIN URTEIL EINES GERICHTS …

  Siehe auch EGMR, Urteil vom 10. Mai 2001, Zypern/Türkei, Nr. 25781/94., CEDH 2001-IV.
• OVG Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, 15.05.2012 - 3 L 98/04

  Zum Anspruch auf Zuerkennung der Flüchtlingseigenschaft - Aserbaidschanische …

  Soweit in der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte eine diskriminierende Behandlung einer Bevölkerungsgruppe als erniedrigende Behandlung anerkannt wurde (Urt. v. 10.05.2001 - 25781/94 -, Slg. 01-IV Nr. 305, 311), ging diese von den Behörden aus.