Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CANGÖZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  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);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 7469/06
• EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 7469/06

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 7469/06

  In response to the Government's argument concerning the costs and expenses relating to the proceedings at the national level, the Court reiterates that, if it finds that there has been a violation of the Convention, it may award the applicant the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts for the prevention or redress of the violation (see Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 56, ECHR 2002-III, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 2668/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 7469/06

  In all instances, however, the next of kin of the victim must be involved in the procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard their legitimate interests (see Güleç v. Turkey, 27 July 1998, § 82, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; see also Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, § 89, 14 September 2010).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 7469/06

  In Akkum and Others v. Turkey (no. 21894/93, § 259, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)) the Court examined the mutilation of the body of a person after his death in an area where a military operation had been conducted, and concluded that the anguish caused to the father of the deceased whose body had been mutilated amounted to degrading treatment (see also Akpınar and Altun v. Turkey, no. 56760/00, §§ 86-87, 27 February 2007).

• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 23502/06

  Bomben auf kurdische Dörfer: Türkei muss Schmerzensgeld zahlen

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 7469/06

  Having reviewed its case-law, the Court observes that one of the common features of investigations conducted by prosecutors in Turkey into killings by members of the security forces is failure to question the perpetrators in a timely manner or to question them at all (see, most recently, Makbule Kaymaz and Others v. Turkey, no. 651/10, § 142, 25 February 2014; Benzer and Others v. Turkey, no. 23502/06, § 188, 12 November 2013; Gülbahar Özer and Others, cited above, § 69; and Özcan and Others, cited above, § 67).
• EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 38450/05

  SABANCHIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 7469/06

  Nevertheless, regardless of whether or not the applicants did so in person, in view of their knowledge of the conditions in which the bodies of their relatives were examined in the military base, the Court has little doubt that the applicants must have endured mental suffering (see, mutatis mutandis, Sabanchiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 38450/05, § 108, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 56760/00

  AKPINAR AND ALTUN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 7469/06

  In Akkum and Others v. Turkey (no. 21894/93, § 259, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)) the Court examined the mutilation of the body of a person after his death in an area where a military operation had been conducted, and concluded that the anguish caused to the father of the deceased whose body had been mutilated amounted to degrading treatment (see also Akpınar and Altun v. Turkey, no. 56760/00, §§ 86-87, 27 February 2007).
• EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 10036/03

  BEKTAS AND ÖZALP v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 7469/06

  Moreover, it cannot be excluded that the failure to question the soldiers created an appearance of collusion between the judicial authorities and the military, and was also 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 (see Bektaş and Özalp v. Turkey, no. 10036/03, § 65, 20 April 2010; and Ramsahai and Others, cited above, § 330).
• EGMR, 25.02.2014 - 651/10

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 7469/06

  Having reviewed its case-law, the Court observes that one of the common features of investigations conducted by prosecutors in Turkey into killings by members of the security forces is failure to question the perpetrators in a timely manner or to question them at all (see, most recently, Makbule Kaymaz and Others v. Turkey, no. 651/10, § 142, 25 February 2014; Benzer and Others v. Turkey, no. 23502/06, § 188, 12 November 2013; Gülbahar Özer and Others, cited above, § 69; and Özcan and Others, cited above, § 67).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 7469/06

  In particular, the force used must be strictly proportionate to the achievement of the aims set out in sub-paragraphs 2 (a), (b) and (c) of Article 2 of the Convention (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 148-149, Series A no. 324).
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 7469/06

  In examining whether the Government have discharged their burden, the Court will not only examine whether the resort to the use of lethal force by the soldiers was no more than absolutely necessary and was strictly proportionate to the achievement of the aims set out in the subparagraphs of Article 2 § 2 of the Convention, but also whether the operation was regulated and organised in such a way as to minimise to the greatest extent possible any risk to life (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 60, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 27866/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 18893/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 44125/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 23038/07

  [FRE]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 42329/11

  AYHAN c. TURQUIE

  In doing so, it will consider in particular the investigation carried out at the domestic level, since 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 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 Cangöz and Others v. Turkey, no. 7469/06, § 115, 26 April 2016; Karataş and Others v. Turkey, no. 46820/09, § 69, 12 September 2017).
• 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, 12.09.2017 - 46820/09

  KARATAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  In doing so, it will consider in particular the investigation carried out at the domestic level since 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 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 (Cangöz and Others v. Turkey, no. 7469/06, § 115, 26 April 2016 and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 65815/10

  GÜLER AND TEKDAL v. TURKEY

  In this connection the Court reiterates that 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 does not only serve the purpose of assessing whether the investigation was in compliance with the requirements of the procedural obligation, but also, as set out above, 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 Cangöz and Others v. Turkey, no. 7469/06, § 115, 26 April 2016; for a summary of the principles of an effective investigation, see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, §§ 172-182, 14 April 2015).