Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KAKOULLI v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 8, Art. 14+2, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violations of Art. 2 No separate issue under Art. 8 No violation of Art. 14+2 or 14+8 Non-pecuniary damage - financial awards Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.09.2001 - 38595/97
• EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 38595/97

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 38595/97

  However, the Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its function and must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).

  In view of the fundamental nature of the right to life, the circumstances in which deprivation of life may be justified must be strictly construed (see Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus, judgment of 9 October 1997, Reports 1997-VI, pp. 2097-98, § 171, p. 2102, § 181, p. 2104, § 186, p. 2107, § 192, and p. 2108, § 193; and McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 108 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).

• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 38595/97

  The Court considers that in principle there can be no such necessity where it is known that the person to be arrested poses no threat to life or limb and is not suspected of having committed a violent offence, even if a failure to use lethal force may result in the opportunity to arrest the fugitive being lost (see the Court's approach in McCann and Others, cited above, pp. 45-46, §§ 146-50 and pp. 56-62, §§ 192-214, and, more recently, in Makaratzis, cited above, §§ 64-66; see also the Court's condemnation of the use of firearms against unarmed and non-violent persons trying to leave the former German Democratic Republic in Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, §§ 87, 96 and 97, ECHR 2001-II; and finally, as the most recent authority, Nachova and Others, cited above, § 95, where the Court condemned excessive use of force to arrest victims, which resulted in their death).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 38595/97

  Referring to the considerations of the Court in the case of McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 59, § 201), the applicants contended that the respondent Government had fallen short of their obligations under Article 2 on account of the use of lethal force by their armed forces against an individual who had been doing no more than collecting snails in a peaceful area at a time when there were no reasonable ground for expecting violence.

 
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 38595/97

  In cases concerning the use of force by State agents, it must take into consideration not only the actions of the agents of the State who actually administered the force but also all the surrounding circumstances including such matters as the relevant legal or regulatory framework in place and the planning and control of the actions under examination (see McCann and Others, cited above, pp. 45-46, §§ 146-147; Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 57-59, ECHR 2004-; and Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 93, ECHR 2004-).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 38595/97

  In this connection the Court reiterates that, by definition, warning shots are fired into the air, with the gun almost vertical, so as to ensure that the suspect is not hit (see OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 83, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 38595/97

  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 of the Convention 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 (see Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 86, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 38595/97

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 32, and Avsar, cited above, § 283), even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place.
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 38595/97

  Where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for those courts to assess the evidence before them (see Klaas v. Germany, judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, p. 17, § 29).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 38595/97

  The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws safeguarding the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 137, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 38595/97

  Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, § 161; Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts); and Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, §§ 141-42, 16 July 2002).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 27602/95

  ULKU EKINCI v. TURKEY

• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 37801/16

  RIBCHEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  35072/97 and 37194/97, § 109, 26 July 2005; and Kakoulli v. Turkey, no. 38595/97, § 110, 22 November 2005), especially when it comes to specialised units (see Giuliani and Gaggio, cited above, § 255).