Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GÜLBAHAR ÖZER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Gülbahar Özer and Others v. Turkey

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 44125/06
• EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 44125/06

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 64406/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 44125/06

  [1] An application lodged by the applicants Gülbahar Özer and Yusuf Özer against Turkey (application no. 64406/09) concerning their inability to bury their children themselves, after a funeral and in a place of their choosing, is currently pending before the Court.
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 44125/06

  In particular, the force used must be strictly proportionate to the achievement of the aims set out in the subparagraphs of the Article (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 148-149, Series A no. 324).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 44125/06

  Though the Court is not bound by the findings of domestic authorities, in normal circumstances it requires cogent elements to lead it to depart from the findings of fact reached by those authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, §§ 29-30, Series A no. 269).

• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 44125/06

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that it is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its functions and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).
• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 27866/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 44125/06

  Moreover, by closing the investigation when they did, the authorities deprived the applicants of the opportunity to find out and be convinced as to how and why their children had been killed (see, mutatis mutandis, Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 51-54, 24 March 2009).
• EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 10036/03

  BEKTAS AND ÖZALP v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 44125/06

  As well as creating an appearance of collusion between the judicial authorities and the military, the failure to question the soldiers is conducive to leading the relatives of the deceased - as well as the public in general - to form the opinion that members of the security forces operate in a vacuum in which they are not accountable to the judicial authorities for their actions (Bektas and Özalp v. Turkey, no. 10036/03, § 65, 20 April 2010).
• EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 18893/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 44125/06

  The Court considers that allowing a unit of soldiers to take such an active part in the investigation into the killing of five persons by another unit of soldiers is not only so serious as to taint the independence of the entirety of the criminal proceedings (see Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, §§ 339-341, ECHR 2007-II), but also entailed the risk that crucial evidence implicating the soldiers in the killing would be destroyed or ignored (see Özcan and Others v. Turkey, no. 18893/05, § 66, 20 April 2010).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 42329/11

  AYHAN c. TURQUIE

  In conclusion, the Court finds that the foregoing is sufficient to conclude that the investigation conducted at the national level was inadequate and left so many obvious questions unanswered that it is not capable of establishing the true facts surrounding the incident and it is unable to rely on the conclusion reached at the end of that investigation (see Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, § 53, 24 March 2009; Özcan and Others v. Turkey, no. 18893/05, § 73, 20 April 2010; and Gülbahar Özer and Others v. Turkey, no. 44125/06, §§ 74-75, 2 July 2013).
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 7469/06

  [ENG]

  In cases where the respondent Government bear the burden of justifying a killing, the examination of the steps taken in an investigation does not only serve the purpose of assessing whether the investigation was in compliance with the requirements of the procedural obligation, but also of deciding whether it was capable of leading to the establishment of whether the force used was or was not justified in the circumstances and whether the Government have thus satisfactorily discharged their burden to justify the killing (see, inter alia, Erdoğan and Others, cited above, § 80; Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 44 and 53, 24 March 2009; Özcan and Others v. Turkey, no. 18893/05, § 61, 20 April 2010; and Gülbahar Özer and Others v. Turkey, no. 44125/06, § 59, 2 July 2013).
• EGMR, 10.10.2024 - 9375/20

  BAGIROVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Rn. 67 In the light of its above findings (see paragraphs 53-64 above), the Court finds that the investigation conducted at the domestic level was so manifestly inadequate and left so many obvious questions unanswered that it is not capable of establishing the true facts surrounding the killing and the Court is unable to rely on the conclusion reached at the end of that investigation (see Gülbahar Özer and Others v. Turkey, no. 44125/06, § 74, 2 July 2013; Cangöz and Others, cited above, § 138; Mihdi Perinçek, cited above, § 80; and Yengibaryan and Simonyan, cited above, § 137).

• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 23502/06

  [ENG]

  In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that these twenty-two heirs have standing to pursue the application in their two deceased relatives" stead (see, most recently, Gülbahar Özer and Others v. Turkey (revision), no. 44125/06, § 8, 10 June 2014, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 3598/03

  MERYEM ÇELIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court, having regard to its established case-law on the matter, concludes that they have standing to pursue the application in Ms Hanife Ä°zci and Mr Hamit Sengül's stead (see, mutatis mutandis, Volkan Özdemir v. Turkey (revision), no. 29105/03, § 5, 20 July 2010; Dyller v. Poland (revision), no. 39842/05, § 8, 15 February 2011; Gülbahar Özer and Others v. Turkey (revision), no. 44125/06, § 8, 10 June 2014[1] and compare with Gabay v. Turkey (revision), no. 70829/01, § 8, 27 June 2006).
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 54915/09

  PERINCEK v. TURKEY

  As the Court has held in a number of comparable judgments, in cases such as the present one where the respondent Government bear the burden of justifying a killing, the examination of the steps taken in an investigation and trial does not only serve the purpose of assessing whether the investigation was in compliance with the requirements of the procedural obligation to conduct effective investigations (which is mentioned above), but also of deciding whether it was capable of leading to the establishment of whether the force used was or was not justified in the circumstances and whether the Government have thus satisfactorily discharged their burden of justifying the killing (see, inter alia, Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 44 and 53, 24 March 2009; Özcan and Others v. Turkey, no. 18893/05, § 61, 20 April 2010; Gülbahar Özer and Others v. Turkey, no. 44125/06, § 59, 2 July 2013; Cangöz and Others v. Turkey, no. 7469/06, § 115, 26 April 2016; and Karataş and Others v. Turkey, no. 46820/09, § 69, 12 September 2017).
• EGMR, 25.03.2025 - 22776/18

  ALMUKHLAS ET AL-MALIKI c. GRÈCE

  Rn. 6 Dans un certain nombre d'affaires où la Cour a décelé des défaillances graves dans l'enquête interne, les constats procéduraux en question ont eu une incidence directe sur le constat d'une violation du droit à la vie à raison du recours à la force (voir, outre les arrêts mentionnés au paragraphe 5 ci-dessus, les arrêts Bagirova c. Azerbaïdjan, no 9375/20, §§ 66-69, 10 octobre 2024, 0hanjanyan c. Arménie, no 70665/11, § 160, 25 avril 2023, Vardanyan et Khalafyan c. Arménie, no 2265/12, §§ 96-97, 8 novembre 2022, Bişar Ayhan et autres c. Turquie, nos 42329/11 et 47319/11, 18 mai 2021, Karataş et autres c. Turquie, no 46820/09, §§ 89-90, 12 septembre 2017, et Gülbahar Özer et autres c. Turquie, no 44125/06, §§ 74-76, 2 juillet 2013).
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 50236/06

  SHATOKHIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers that the judgment of 27 February 2018 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court (see, among many others, Bajrami v. Albania (revision), no. 35853/04, 18 December 2007; Volkan Özdemir v. Turkey (revision), no. 29105/03, 20 July 2010; Kulikowski v. Poland (revision), no. 18353/03, 21 December 2010; Dyller v. Poland (revision), no. 39842/05, 15 February 2011; Gülbahar Özer and Others v. Turkey (revision), no. 44125/06, 10 June 2014; Nosov and Others v. Russia (revision), nos.
• EGMR, 12.09.2017 - 46820/09

  KARATAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court notes at the outset that the initial and critical phases of the investigation were carried out by the Hozat public prosecutor and not, as has been noted in a number of comparable cases against Turkey, by the soldiers who were implicated in the events (see Gülbahar Özer and Others v. Turkey, no. 44125/06, § 62, 2 July 2013, and Cangöz and Others, cited above, §§ 125-126).
• EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 30395/06

  ANGIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers that the judgment of 17 April 2018 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court (see, among many others, Bajrami v. Albania (revision), no. 35853/04, 18 December 2007; Volkan Özdemir v. Turkey (revision), no. 29105/03, 20 July 2010; Kulikowski v. Poland (revision), no. 18353/03, 21 December 2010; Dyller v. Poland (revision), no. 39842/05, 15 February 2011; Gülbahar Özer and Others v. Turkey (revision), no. 44125/06, 10 June 2014; Nosov and Others v. Russia (revision), nos.
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 65815/10

  GÜLER AND TEKDAL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 52534/09

  [ENG]