Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YÖYLER v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 18, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 8 and P1-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 No violation of Art. 14 No violation of Art. 18 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 13.01.1997 - 26973/95
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 26973/95

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 26973/95

  The Court reiterates that, in assessing evidence, it adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 264, ECHR 2002).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 26973/95

  The Court further reiterates that the responsibility of a State under the Convention, arising for the acts of its organs, agents and servants, is not to be confused with the criminal responsibility of any particular individuals (Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 284, ECHR 2001-VII).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 26973/95

  The Court points out that it has already found that the applicant's home and possessions were destroyed in violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicant's complaints in this regard are therefore "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52, and Dulas, cited above, § 67).

• EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 38450/05

  SABANCHIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Dans de telles affaires, la Cour a généralement limité ses conclusions à l'article 2. En revanche, elle a constaté la violation de l'article 3 en raison d'une souffrance morale endurée par des requérants en conséquence d'actes commis par les forces de sécurité, qui avaient brûlé leurs maisons et leurs biens sous leurs yeux (Selçuk et Asker c. Turquie, 24 avril 1998, §§ 77-80, Recueil 1998-II, Yöyler c. Turquie, no 26973/95, §§ 74-76, 24 juillet 2003, et Ayder et autres c. Turquie, no 23656/94, §§ 109-111, 8 janvier 2004).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 15256/05

  TCHANKOTADZE v. GEORGIA

  Here are the judgments (in chronological order) in which this pattern has been employed: Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey (24 April 1998, Reports 1998-II) - violations of Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; Kurt v. Turkey (25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III) - violations of Articles 3, 5 and 13, as well as a finding "that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under [former] Article 25 § 1" (as it was worded at that time); Tekin v. Turkey (9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV) - violations of Articles 3 and 13; Ergi v. Turkey (28 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV) - violations of Articles 2 and 13 and (former) Article 25 § 1 (as it was worded at that time); Sener v. Turkey (no. 26680/95, 18 July 2000) - violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 10; Tanli v. Turkey (no. 26129/95, ECHR 2001-III) - violations of Articles 2 (both substantive and procedural) and 13; Tepe v. Turkey (no. 27244/95, 9 May 2003) - violations of Articles 2 (procedural) and 13; Yöyler v. Turkey (no. 26973/95, 24 July 2003) - violation of Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; Tekdag v. Turkey (no. 27699/95, 15 January 2004) - violations of Article 2 (procedural) and 13, as well as a finding that the respondent Government had "failed to fulfil their obligation under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention"; Ipek v. Turkey (no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004-II) - violations of Articles 2 (both substantive and procedural), 3, 5 and 13 (the latter in conjunction with Articles 2, 3 and 5) of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as well as a finding that the respondent Government had "failed to fulfil their obligation under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention"; Altun v. Turkey (no. 24561/94, 1 June 2004) - violations of Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; Sirin Yilmaz v. Turkey (no. 35875/97, 29 July 2004) - violations of Article 2 (procedural) and 13; Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey (no. 32446/96, 2 November 2004) - violations of Article 3, Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 and Article 13; Dicle v. Turkey (no. 34685/97, 10 November 2004) - violations of Article 10 and Article 6 § 1; Mentese and Others v. Turkey (no. 36217/97, 18 January 2005) - violations of Articles 2 (procedural) and 13; Agtas and Others v. Turkey (no. 33240/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Artun and Others v. Turkey (no. 33239/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Keser and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33238/96 and 32965/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Kumru Yilmaz and Others v. Turkey (no. 36211/97, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Nesibe Haran v. Turkey (no. 28299/95, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 2 (procedural); Öztoprak and Others v. Turkey (no. 33247/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Sayli v. Turkey (no. 33243/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Aksakal v. Turkey (no. 37850/97, §§ 43-44, 15 February 2007) - a violation of Article 13; Khodorkovskiy (cited above) - violations of Article 3 and Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4; OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos (cited above) - violations of Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev (cited above) - violations of Article 3, Article 5 §§ 3 and 4, Article 6 § 1 (in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) and (d)) and Article 8 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as well as a finding that the authorities had failed "to respect their obligation under Article 34 of the Convention".
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 25760/94

  IPEK c. TURQUIE

  La Cour renvoie à sa jurisprudence récente confirmant que le critère à appliquer pour apprécier les éléments de preuve est celui de la preuve « au-delà de tout doute raisonnable'(Orhan c. Turquie, no 25656/94, § 264, 19 juin 2002 ; Tepe c. Turquie, no 27244/95, § 125, 9 mai 2003 ; et Yöyler c. Turquie, no 26973/95, § 52, 24 juillet 2003).

 
• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 22089/07

  ARKHESTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In such cases the Court has normally limited its findings to Article 2. On the other hand, the Court has found a violation of Article 3 on account of mental suffering endured by applicants as a result of the acts of security forces who had burnt down their homes and possessions before their eyes (see Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey, 24 April 1998, §§ 77-80, Reports 1998-II; Yöyler v. Turkey, no. 26973/95, §§ 74-76, 24 July 2003; and Ayder and Others v. Turkey, no. 23656/94, §§ 109-11, 8 January 2004).
• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 7988/09

  ZALOV AND KHAKULOVA v. RUSSIA

  In such cases the Court has normally limited its findings to Article 2. On the other hand, the Court has found a violation of Article 3 on account of mental suffering endured by applicants as a result of the acts of security forces who had burnt down their homes and possessions before their eyes (see Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey, 24 April 1998, §§ 77-80, Reports 1998-II; Yöyler v. Turkey, no. 26973/95, §§ 74-76, 24 July 2003; and Ayder and Others v. Turkey, no. 23656/94, §§ 109-11, 8 January 2004).
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 16838/08

  BABAKIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The practices involved permitted or fostered a lack of accountability of members of the security forces for their actions which was not compatible with the rule of law in a democratic society respecting the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention (see, among many others, the following cases concerning the right to life: Güleç v. Turkey, 27 July 1998, §§ 63-83, Reports 1998-IV; Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 75, ECHR 2000-III; Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 98, ECHR 2000-III; and the following cases relating to the destruction of property: Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey, 24 April 1998, § 98, Reports 1998-II; Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, § 203, ECHR 2004-II (extracts); Bilgin v. Turkey, no. 23819/94, § 119, 16 November 2000; and Yöyler v. Turkey, no. 26973/95, § 96, 24 July 2003).
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 46677/06

  MINARIK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Moreover, an applicant does not need to exercise remedies which, although theoretically of a nature as to constitute a remedy, do not in reality offer any chance of redressing the alleged breach (Yoyler v. Turkey (dec.), no. 26973/95, 13 January 1997).