Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KELLY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 36, Art. 36 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Art. 34 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 No violation of Art. 6 No violation of Art. 14 No violation of Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 30054/96
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 30054/96

Wird zitiert von ... (37)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 30054/96

  The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia eye witness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death (see concerning autopsies, e.g. Salman v. Turkey cited above, § 106; concerning witnesses e.g. Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 199-IV, § 109; concerning forensic evidence e.g. Gül v. Turkey, 22676/93, [Section 4], § 89).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 30054/96

  A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Yasa v. Turkey judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-IV, pp. 2439-2440, §§ 102-104; Cakıcı v. Turkey cited above, §§ 80, 87 and 106; Tanrikulu v. Turkey, cited above, § 109; Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, [Section I] ECHR 2000-III, §§ 106-107).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 30054/96

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC] no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII, § 100, and also Çakıcı v. Turkey, [GC] ECHR 1999- IV, § 85, Ertak v. Turkey no. 20764/92 [Section 1] ECHR 2000-V, § 32 and Timurtas v. Turkey, no; 23531/94 [Section 1] ECHR 2000-VI, § 82).
• EGMR, 14.12.2000 - 22676/93

  GÜL v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 30054/96

  The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia eye witness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death (see concerning autopsies, e.g. Salman v. Turkey cited above, § 106; concerning witnesses e.g. Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 199-IV, § 109; concerning forensic evidence e.g. Gül v. Turkey, 22676/93, [Section 4], § 89).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 30054/96

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings also requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see the McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, pp. 45-46, §§ 146-147).

• EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 25965/04

  RANTSEV v. CYPRUS AND RUSSIA

  This requires not only hierarchical or institutional independence but also practical independence (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 120, ECHR 2001-III (extracts); and Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 114, 4 May 2001).
• EGMR, 22.05.2014 - 49278/09

  "Herr Doktor from Germany" ist in Großbritannien nicht mehr so gerne gesehen

  Der Gerichtshof wiederholt in diesem Zusammenhang, dass er in früheren Entscheidungen, die die Verantwortlichkeit staatlicher Amtsträger im Zusammenhang mit Todesfällen betrafen, festgestellt hat, dass nach Artikel 2 Abs. 1 bei der behördlichen Untersuchung der zugrunde liegenden Ereignisse "die nächsten Angehörigen des Opfers in dem zur Wahrung ihrer rechtmäßigen Interessen erforderlichen Umfang in den Prozess einzubinden" sind (…siehe Hugh Jordan./. das Vereinigte Königreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 24746/94, Rdnr. 109, ECHR 2001-III (Auszüge); und Kelly u. a../. das Vereinigte Königreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 30054/96, Rdnr. 98, 4.
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  1778-79, §§ 83-84, and the recent Northern Irish judgments, for example, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 120, and Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 114, both of 4 May 2001.

 
• EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 28864/18

  GRIBBEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Relevant Committee of Ministers Resolutions 93. In addition to its earlier judgment in the present case (McCaughey and Others, cited above), the Court has adopted seven other judgments concerning the investigation of killings by security forces in Northern Ireland between 1968 and 1998 (see Hugh Jordan, cited above; McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, ECHR 2001-III; Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, no. 37715/97, 4 May 2001; Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, 4 May 2001; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, 28 May 2002; Finucane v. the United Kingdom, no. 29178/95, ECHR 2003-VIII; and Hemsworth v. the United Kingdom, no. 58559/09, 16 July 2013).

  In this regard the applicant submitted that in respect of the police investigation, the decision of the DPP not to prosecute and the civil proceedings (see McCaughey and Others, cited above, § 45), there were strong parallels between the present case and that of Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 30054/96, 4 May 2001) and consequently there was no basis on which the Court could depart from its conclusions in that case.

• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 58559/09

  HEMSWORTH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  On 7 June 2001 the Coroner opened a pre-inquest hearing, in 16 cases including into John Hemsworth's death, to hear submissions on the implications of the judgments of this Court of 4 May 2001 in certain cases concerning deaths in Northern Ireland (Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, (extracts); McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, both in ECHR 2001-III; Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, no. 37715/97; and Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96).

  This premise seems to have little support in the Court's position in hundreds of other cases, where the Court held that "any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its capability of establishing the circumstances of the case or the person responsible is liable to fall foul of the required standard of effectiveness" (see, among many other authorities, Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, §§ 96-97, 4 May 2001; Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 139, ECHR 2002-IV; and Mojsiejew v. Poland, no. 11818/02, 24 March 2009).

• EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 23458/02

  GIULIANI c. ITALIE

  L'enquête requise par les articles 2 et 13 de la Convention doit être propre à conduire à l'identification et au châtiment des responsables (McKerr c. Royaume-Uni, no 28883/95, § 121, CEDH 2001-III ; Hugh Jordan c. Royaume-Uni, no 24746/94, § 115, CEDH 2001-III (extraits) ; Kelly et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 30054/96, § 105, 4 mai 2001 ; McShane c. Royaume-Uni, no 43290/98, § 125).

  Subsidiairement, « par acquis de conscience ", si un lien de causalité juridiquement appréciable entre le coup de feu et la mort de Carlo Giuliani était retenu par la Cour, et si la responsabilité de l'Etat se trouvait dès lors engagée, le Gouvernement argue que le recours à la force « meurtrière'a été « absolument nécessaire'et « proportionné'(Andronicou et Constantinou c. Chypre, arrêt du 9 octobre 1997, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997-VI ; Brady c. Royaume-Uni (déc), no 55151/00, 3 avril 2001 ; Ahmet Özkan et autres c. Turquie, no 21689/93, 6 avril 2004 ; Kelly c. Royaume, no 30054/96, décision de la Commission, 13 janvier 1993).

• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 38455/06

  PORTMANN c. SUISSE

  Cela suppose non seulement l'absence de tout lien hiérarchique ou institutionnel, mais également une indépendance pratique (voir, par exemple, l'arrêt Ergı c. Turquie du 28 juillet 1998, §§ 83-84, Recueil 1998-IV, et Kelly et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 30054/96, § 114, 4 mai 2001).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57947/00

  ISSAIEVA, YOUSSOUPOVA ET BAZAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Cela suppose non seulement l'absence de tout lien hiérarchique ou institutionnel, mais également une indépendance pratique (voir, par exemple, Ergi c. Turquie, arrêt du 28 juillet 1998, Recueil 1998-IV, pp. 1778-1779, §§ 83-84, et les affaires nord-irlandaises récentes, par exemple McKerr c. Royaume-Uni, no 28883/95, § 128, Hugh Jordan c. Royaume-Uni, arrêt précité, § 120, et Kelly et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 30054/96, § 114, CEDH 2001-III).
• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 50222/99

  KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA

  The proceedings under the State Responsibility for Damage Act, which were premised on the strict liability of the authorities and could only result in the award of compensation (see paragraph 45 above), but not in the punishment of those responsible for the ill-treatment, cannot be considered as satisfying the procedural requirements of Article 3 (see, mutatis mutandis, Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2431, § 74, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 79, ECHR 1999-IV, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 83, ECHR 2000-VII, Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 61, ECHR 2000-VII, Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 57, 14 December 2000, Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 105, 4 May 2001, Avsar v. Turkey [GC], no. 25657/94, § 377, ECHR 2001-VII, and Ayder v. Turkey, no. 23656/94, § 98, 8 January 2004).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57950/00

  ISAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Cela suppose non seulement l'absence de tout lien hiérarchique ou institutionnel, mais également une indépendance pratique (voir, par exemple, l'arrêt Ergi c. Turquie du 28 juillet 1998, Recueil 1998-IV, pp. 1778-1779, §§ 83-84, et les affaires nord-irlandaises récentes, par exemple les arrêts McKerr c. Royaume-Uni, no 28883/95, § 128, Hugh Jordan c. Royaume-Uni, no 24746/94, § 120, et Kelly et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 30054/96, § 114, CEDH 2001-III).
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 43098/09

  McCAUGHEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 64301/01

  VELCEA ET MAZARE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 08.12.2005 - 32444/96

  KANLIBAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 49790/99

  TRUBNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.07.2003 - 29178/95

  FINUCANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 24520/94

  CARAHER contre le ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 23038/07

  ÜLÜFER c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 34160/09

  DOBRE ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 22.03.2005 - 28290/95

  GÜNGÖR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 10425/09

  ACATRINEI ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 05.10.2004 - 46430/99

  BARBU ANGHELESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 74832/01

  MIZIGÁROVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 05.06.2007 - 63758/00

  ANIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 42066/98

  BURSUC c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 56838/08

  ALECU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 26246/05

  IORGA ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 49234/99

  POPESCU c. ROUMANIE (N° 1)
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 43247/02

  MELINTE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 40073/98

  IHSAN BILGIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 47357/08

  ALIKAJ ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 54182/00

  HALIT CELEBI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 12.04.2016 - 43626/13

  ECATERINA MIREA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 10778/02

  NITA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 75527/01

  UCAK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 43629/13

  ANAMARIA-LOREDANA ORASANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2007 - 75632/01

  EKREM c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 32597/96

  HALIT DINÇ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE