Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27693/95   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2005,46378
EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27693/95 (https://dejure.org/2005,46378)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 31.05.2005 - 27693/95 (https://dejure.org/2005,46378)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 31. Mai 2005 - 27693/95 (https://dejure.org/2005,46378)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,46378) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CELIKBILEK v. TURKEY

    Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 2 No violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 13 Not necessary to examine Art. 14 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (68)Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

    ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27693/95
    In contrast, in the case of Çakici v. Turkey (no. 23657/94, ECHR 1999-IV), the Court did not accept that the applicant had been the victim of a violation of Article 3, since he had not been present when the security forces had taken his brother, had not personally borne the brunt of making petitions and enquiries to the authorities, and there had not been any aggravating features arising from the response of the authorities (see Çakici, § 99).
  • EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83
    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27693/95
    Rn. 117 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, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27693/95
    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 McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, pp. 45-46, §§ 146-147).
  • EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

    POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27693/95
    A complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on (see Guerra and Others v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, § 44; Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 13, § 29; see also Assenov and others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, § 132).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27693/95
    Indeed, in that case 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).
  • EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

    TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27693/95
    A failure on a Government's part to submit such information which is in their hands without a satisfactory explanation may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see Timurtaş v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 66 and 70, ECHR 2000-VI).
  • EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

    AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27693/95
    Rn. 70 It is appropriate, therefore, that in cases such as the present - where it is the non-disclosure by the Government of crucial documents in their exclusive possession which puts obstacles in the way of the Court's establishment of the facts -, it is for the Government to argue conclusively why the documents in question cannot serve to corroborate the allegation made by the applicant (see Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 211, 24 March 2005).
  • EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 26129/95

    TANLI v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27693/95
    Rn. 98 While the Court does not doubt that the death of his brother caused the applicant profound suffering, it nevertheless finds no basis for finding a violation of Article 3 in this context (see, a contrario, disappearance cases; Tanlı v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 159, ECHR 2001-III (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 09.05.2003 - 27244/95

    TEPE v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27693/95
    The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the judgment of Tepe v. Turkey (no. 27244/95, §§ 115-122, 9 May 2003).
  • EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 77626/01

    AZIYEVY v. RUSSIA

    The Court would stress in this regard that the evaluation of the evidence and the establishment of the facts is a matter for the Court, and it is incumbent on it to decide on the evidentiary value of the documents submitted to it (see Çelikbilek v. Turkey, no. 27693/95, § 71, 31 May 2005).
  • EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 27872/03

    [ENG]

    Although the inadequacy of the investigation into the killing of their relatives will obviously have caused the applicants feelings of anguish and mental suffering, the Court considers that it has not been established that there were special factors which would justify finding a separate violation of Article 3 of the Convention in relation to the applicants (ibid, at § 239, and the cases cited therein; see also Dündar v. Turkey, no. 26972/95, § 91, 20 September 2005; Çelikbilek v. Turkey, no. 27693/95, §§ 98-99, 31 May 2005 and the case cited therein).
  • EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12

    BLJAKAJ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

    The Court thus considers that the fourth and fifth applicants, as sisters of M.B.B., who took part in the domestic proceedings before the Constitutional Court as parties affected by her death and whose victim status was never challenged at the domestic level, can claim to be victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Çelikbilek v. Turkey (dec.), no. 27693/95, 22 June 1999; Velikova, cited above; and Renolde v. France, no. 5608/05, § 69, ECHR 2008).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht