Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DEVRIM TURAN v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 13 Remainder inadmissible (other aspect of the Art. 3 complaint) Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.01.2005 - 879/02
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 879/02

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 22.07.2003 - 24209/94

  Y.F. c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 879/02

  However, as recognised in the Court's case-law (see, mutatis mutandis, Y.F. v. Turkey, no. 24209/94, § 43, ECHR 2003-IX), medical examination of detainees by a forensic doctor can prove to be a significant safeguard against false accusations of sexual molestation or ill-treatment.

  I note that these reasons submitted by the Government to justify its action in this regard are more narrow than those advanced by them in Y.F. v. Turkey (no. 24209/94, ECHR 2003-IX) which also involved the taking by the police authorities of a female detainee to a hospital for a gynaecological examination.

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 879/02

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 879/02

  In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers it appropriate to examine these complaints under Article 13 of the Convention, it being understood that, since the Court is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, it does not consider itself bound by the characterisation given by an applicant or a Government (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 127, ECHR 2004-...); Aksoy v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, p. 2287, § 98; Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3291, § 107; and BüyükdaÄ? v. Turkey, no. 28340/95, § 60, 21 December 2000).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 879/02

  In accordance with this provision the State must ensure that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 879/02

  Furthermore, in considering whether treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3. However, the absence of such a purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of this provision (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67, 68 and 74, ECHR 2001-III; and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 879/02

  While reiterating that Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies, the Court recalls that in assessing evidence in a claim of violation of Article 3 of the Convention, it adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 879/02

  Furthermore, in considering whether treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3. However, the absence of such a purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of this provision (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67, 68 and 74, ECHR 2001-III; and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 879/02

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, as in the present case, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 32, and Avsar, cited above, § 283).