Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AKDENIZ v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 32, Art. 41, Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 (presumed death) Violation of Art. 2 (failure to investigate) Violations of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5 Not necessary to examine Art. 6 Violation of Art. 13 Not necessary to examine Art. 14 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 01.12.1997 - 25165/94
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 25165/94

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 25165/94

  The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eye-witness testimony (see, concerning witnesses, for example, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 109, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 25165/94

  They cannot leave it to the initiative of the next of kin either to lodge a formal complaint or to take responsibility for the conduct of any investigatory procedures (see, for example, mutatis mutandis, Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 25165/94

  However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating a use of lethal force or disappearance may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their maintenance of the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in, or tolerance of, unlawful acts (see, in general, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 108-115, ECHR 2001-III).

 
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 25165/94

  As regards the applicant's claim for loss of earnings, the Court's case-law has established that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention and that this may, in appropriate cases, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see, among other authorities, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (Article 50), judgment of 13 June 1994, Series A no. 285-C, pp.
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 25165/94

  The complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 5 are therefore clearly arguable for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52, together with Kaya and Yasa judgments, § 107 and § 113, respectively, cited above).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 25165/94

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV, and Timurtas, cited above, § 82).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93

  KILIÇ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 25165/94

  It is further to be recalled that the Court has held in previous judgments that defects undermining the effectiveness of criminal-law protection in the south-east during the period relevant also to this case, permitted or fostered a lack of accountability of members of the security forces for their actions (Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 75, ECHR 2000-III, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 98, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 25165/94

  It is further to be recalled that the Court has held in previous judgments that defects undermining the effectiveness of criminal-law protection in the south-east during the period relevant also to this case, permitted or fostered a lack of accountability of members of the security forces for their actions (Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 75, ECHR 2000-III, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 98, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 25165/94

  The Court considers that such a serious contradiction directly affects the credibility of the version of the facts as presented by the Government and, moreover, justifies the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 66, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 25165/94

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV, and Timurtas, cited above, § 82).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 12750/87

  PHILIS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

• EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 21794/08

  ZORICA JOVANOVIC v. SERBIA

  Maîtresse de la qualification juridique des faits (Akdeniz c. Turquie, no 25165/94, § 88, 31 mai 2005), la Cour considère qu'il y a lieu d'examiner ce grief sur le terrain de l'article 8 de la Convention, lequel dispose en ses passages pertinents:.
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06

  ASLAKHANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Thus, the Court has dealt with a "pattern of enforced disappearances" occurring principally between 1992 and 1996 in South-Eastern Turkey (see, among others, OsmanoÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, 24 January 2008; Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, 31 May 2005; Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004-II (extracts); Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, 31 May 2001; Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, 14 November 2000; Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, ECHR 2000-VI; Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, ECHR 2000-V; and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 41226/09

  Türkei verurteilt: Nicht jeder ist ein Terrorist

  The Court reiterates that it is the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case and is not bound by the characterisation given by the applicant or the Government (see Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, § 88, 31 May 2005; Aksu v. Turkey [GC], nos.

 
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 17526/10

  GÜLCÜ v. TURKEY

  The Court reiterates that it is the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case and is not bound by the characterisation given by the applicant or the Government (see Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, § 88, 31 May 2005; Aksu v. Turkey [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07

  MUCIBABIC v. SERBIA

  In the light of its case-law (see, for example, Öneryildiz v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, ECHR 2004-XII, and Pereira Henriques v. Luxembourg, no. 60255/00, 9 May 2006) and being the "master of the characterisation" to be given in law to the facts of any case before it (see Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, § 88, 31 May 2005 and Mladenovic v. Serbia, no. 1099/08, § 35, 22 May 2012), the Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 2 of the Convention (see Gina Ionescu v. Romania, no. 15318/09, § 28, 11 December 2012), which reads as follows:.
• EGMR, 01.03.2018 - 78241/13

  SELAMI AND OTHERS v.

  The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see, for instance, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 61, ECHR 2016 (extracts) and Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, § 88, 31 May 2005), considers that the applicants" complaints are to be examined under Articles 3 and 5 § 5 of the Convention, which read as follows:.
• EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03

  MERYEM ÇELIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court further noted that in its examination of a number of those disappearances, it had reached the conclusion that the disappearance of a person in south-east Turkey at the relevant time could be regarded as a life-threatening event (see, Er and Others, cited above, § 77, and the following cases cited therein: OsmanoÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, 24 January 2008; Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, 31 May 2005; Ä°pek, cited above; Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, 31 May 2001; Çiçek, cited above; Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, 14 November 2000; Timurtas, cited above; Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, ECHR 2000-V; and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02

  KYRIACOU TSIAKKOURMAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of any case before it (see Zorica Jovanovic v. Serbia, no. 21794/08, § 43, ECHR 2013, and Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, § 88, 31 May 2005), considers that these complaints fall to be examined under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention, which read as follows:.
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 10968/04

  KECMAN v. SERBIA

  The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, § 88, 31 May 2005), considers that the applicant's complaint falls to be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 read separately and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention (see, for example, Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 2611/07

  DOBRIC v. SERBIA

  Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of any case before it, the Court considers that the above complaints fall to be examined under Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention only (see Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, § 88, 31 May 2005, and García Manibardo v. Spain, no. 38695/97, § 36, ECHR 2000-II).