Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  UÇAR v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. ... 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14+2, Art. 14, Art. 14+3, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Art. 2 No violation of Art. 3 No violation of Art. 5 (disappearance) Violation of Art. 5-3 (duration of police custody) Violation of Art. 5-5 No violation of Art. 6 Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 13 No violation of Art. 14 No violation of ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.01.2005 - 52392/99
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 52392/99

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (22)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 52392/99

  Respect for family life implies an obligation for the State to act in a manner calculated to allow such ties to develop normally (see Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, § 45).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 52392/99

  These obligations arise when there is a direct and immediate link between the measures sought by an applicant and the latter's private and/or family life (see Zehnalova and Zehnal v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 38621/97, ECHR 2002-V, Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 17, § 32, X and Y v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91, p. 11, § 23, López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, p. 55, § 55, Guerra and Others v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p 227, § 58).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 52392/99

  These obligations arise when there is a direct and immediate link between the measures sought by an applicant and the latter's private and/or family life (see Zehnalova and Zehnal v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 38621/97, ECHR 2002-V, Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 17, § 32, X and Y v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91, p. 11, § 23, López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, p. 55, § 55, Guerra and Others v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p 227, § 58).

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 52392/99

  In addition, where the relatives of a person have an arguable claim that the latter has disappeared and/or been subjected to ill-treatment, the notion of an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 13 entails, in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible and effective access for the relatives to the investigatory procedure (see Ä°pek, cited above, § 198, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92

  DIKME c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 52392/99

  In order to determine whether the aim of Article 6 - a fair trial - has been achieved, regard must be had to the entirety of the proceedings conducted in the case (see Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, § 109, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 32842/96

  NUUTINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 52392/99

  In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and the community as a whole, and in both contexts the State is recognised as enjoying a certain margin of appreciation (see Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 01.10.2002 - 37645/97

  SAWICKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 52392/99

  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 Sawicka v. Poland, no. 37645/97, § 54, 1 October 2002).
• EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 38621/97

  ZEHNALOVÁ ET ZEHNAL c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 52392/99

  These obligations arise when there is a direct and immediate link between the measures sought by an applicant and the latter's private and/or family life (see Zehnalova and Zehnal v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 38621/97, ECHR 2002-V, Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 17, § 32, X and Y v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91, p. 11, § 23, López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, p. 55, § 55, Guerra and Others v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p 227, § 58).
• EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 44093/98

  ÇELIK AND IMRET v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 52392/99

  Failing this, a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see, among others, Çolak and Filizer v. Turkey, nos. 32578/96 and 32579/96, § 30, 8 January 2004, and Çelik and Ä°mret v. Turkey, no. 44093/98, § 39, 26 October 2004).
• EKMR, 08.12.1979 - 8022/77

  X., Y. and Z. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 52392/99

  The unexplained disappearance of a family member, even for a short period of time, may provoke great anxiety (see McVeigh and Others, O"Neill, and Evans v. the United Kingdom, nos. 8022/77, 8025/77 and 8027/77, Commission's report of 18 March 1981, Decisions and Reports (DR) 25, p. 52, § 237).
• EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 32578/96

  Folterverbot; unmenschliche Behandlung (Anwendung auf den Terrorismus: PKK; …
• EGMR, 29.11.2005 - 37038/97

  NURI KURT v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 23145/93

  ELÇI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EKMR, 30.06.1997 - 25091/94

  SAHiN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 27602/95

  ULKU EKINCI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 26144/95

  Ikincisoy ./. Türkei
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27306/95

  KISMIR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 46747/99

  AKDOGDU c. TURQUIE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 4762/05

  MIKAYIL MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Although the inadequacy of the investigation into his wife's death may arguably have caused the applicant feelings of anguish and mental suffering, the Court does not find in the present case sufficient special features which would justify a separate examination of an alleged violation in respect of the applicant under Article 3 of the Convention (compare, mutatis mutandis, Tahsin Acar, cited above, § 239; Uçar v. Turkey, no. 52392/99, § 110, 11 April 2006; and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, §§ 98-99, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03

  MERYEM ÇELIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The mere fact that the authorities were informed of the killing of an individual gives rise, ipso facto, to an obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death (see Ucar v. Turkey, no. 52392/99, § 90, 11 April 2006).
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 59548/00
  En pareil cas, la Cour a pour tâche de déterminer si les autorités savaient ou auraient dû savoir qu'il existait un risque réel et immédiat et, dans l'affirmative, si elles ont fait tout ce que l'on pouvait attendre d'elles pour empêcher, dans toute la mesure du possible, que la vie de la personne concernée soit mise en danger (Uçar c. Turquie, no 52392/99, § 86, 11 avril 2006).

• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 29729/09

  [ENG]

  In several previous cases the Court has accepted that a person who was not the direct victim of the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention, could have standing to lodge a complaint under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention in relation to the deprivation of liberty of a deceased victim (see also, mutatis mutandis, Taş, cited above, § 86; Uçar v. Turkey, no. 52392/99, §§ 121-23, 11 April 2006; and Houtman and Meeus v. Belgium, no. 22945/07, §§ 29-31 and 51, 17 March 2009).
• EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 42942/02

  ALI AND AYSE DURAN v. TURKEY

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings also requires that these provisions be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see Uçar v. Turkey, no. 52392/99, § 102, 11 April 2006; and Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 109, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 5337/02

  MEHMET BILEN v. TURKEY

  The Court has examined similar cases on previous occasions and has found violations of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention in respect of the lack of an effective remedy under Turkish law whereby the applicant could have contested the lawfulness of his detention in police custody and obtain compensation to that effect (see, in particular, Bazancir and Others v. Turkey, nos. 56002/00 and 7059/02, §§ 30-32, 11 October 2005, Mehmet Mübarek Küçük v. Turkey, no. 7035/02, § 31, 20 October 2005, Uçar v. Turkey, no. 52392/99, § 122, 11 April 2006, Keklik and Others, §§ 46-48 and 52, and Ferhat Berk, §§ 21-22 and 25-27, both cited above).