Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AYDER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 18, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objections rejected (estoppel non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 with regard to inhuman treatment Not necessary to examine Art. 3 with regard to inhuman punishment Violation of Art. 8 and P1-1 Violation of Art. 13 Not necessary to ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 15.05.1995 - 23656/94
• EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 23656/94

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

  Dieter Krombach

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 23656/94

  The Court will make an award in respect of costs and expenses in so far as these were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, among other authorities, Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 106, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 23656/94

  They are therefore estopped from raising objections to the admissibility of the application before the Court (see Loizidou v. Turkey, judgment of 23 March 1995 (preliminary objections), Series A no. 310, p. 19, § 44).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 23656/94

  In the present case, the Court has found established that the applicants' homes and possessions were destroyed, disclosing violations of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicants' 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, İlhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 98, ECHR 2000-VII).

• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 23656/94

  In the present case, the Court has found established that the applicants' homes and possessions were destroyed, disclosing violations of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicants' 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, İlhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 98, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 23656/94

  While the Court is not bound by the Commission's findings of facts and remains free to make its own assessment in the light of all the material before it, it is however only in exceptional circumstances that it will exercise its powers in this area (see, among other authorities, Timurtaş v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 63, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 23656/94

  Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law, in particular in the sense that its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by the acts or omissions of the authorities of the respondent State (see Aksoy v. Turkey, cited above, § 95; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 117, ECHR 1999-IV; and Timurtaş v. Turkey, cited above, § 111).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• 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, Yaşa 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, İlhan 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, Avşar v. Turkey [GC], no. 25657/94, § 377, ECHR 2001-VII, and Ayder v. Turkey, no. 23656/94, § 98, 8 January 2004).
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03

  ESMUKHAMBETOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The applicants referred to the cases of Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey (24 April 1998, Reports 1998-II), Yöyler v. Turkey (no. 26973/95, 24 July 2003) and Ayder and Others v. Turkey (no. 23656/94, 8 January 2004), in which the Court had found a violation of Article 3 on account of the destruction of the applicants" homes before their eyes.
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 19841/06

  BAGDONAVICIUS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Ils se réfèrent à cet égard à l'arrêt Ayder et autres c. Turquie (no 23656/94, §§ 119-120, 8 janvier 2004).

• EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 32394/11

  [ENG]

  The Court has already found, in previous cases involving allegations by residents of Chechnya concerning the destruction of their property within the context of military and security operations, that an adequate criminal investigation would constitute a potentially effective domestic remedy (see Khamzayev and Others v. Russia, no. 1503/02, § 154, 3 May 2011; Salamov v. Russia, no. 5063/05, § 38, 12 January 2016; and, for a similar approach in the Turkish context, Ayder and Others v. Turkey, no. 23656/94, § 98, 8 January 2004).
• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 22089/07

  [ENG]

  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

  [ENG]

  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, 05.09.2017 - 51375/07

  ÇAKIR v. TURKEY

  The applicants' son Zana Çakır was shot and killed on 22 October 1993 by, according to the applicants, members of the security forces in the course of a large-scale security operation in the town of Lice in south-east Turkey (for a description of the events during which the applicants' son lost his life, see Ayder and Others v. Turkey, no. 23656/94, 8 January 2004).
• EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 62954/00

  TANASE AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  However, they did not prove in any way to have discharged it (see Ayder and others v. Turkey, no. 23656/94, § 111, 8 January 2004, Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey, judgment of 24 April 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 910, §§ 77-78).
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 30681/96

  SASMAZ, DOMAN, YILDIRIM, SITILAY, YILDIRIM ET CAYTAS v. TURKEY

  23656/94, 26679/95, 28514/95, 30649/96, 30652/96 and 30789/96.