Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KYRIACOU TSIAKKOURMAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic remedy) Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 13320/02
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02
• EGMR - 13320/02

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (30)

• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 23164/09

  RECEP KURT c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02

  In the light of all the facts of the case and its findings under the aforementioned provisions, the Court deems it unnecessary to rule separately on either the admissibility or the merits of the complaint under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention (see Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; Recep Kurt v. Turkey, no. 23164/09, § 70, 22 November 2011; and Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 72, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41220/98

  ALIEV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02

  It has been held by the Court that some measure of control of prisoners" contacts with the outside world is called for and is not of itself incompatible with the Convention (see Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts), and Aliev v. Ukraine, no. 41220/98, § 187, 29 April 2003).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02

  However, although the relevant domestic courts ordered the prolongation of the first applicant's detention at the end of each hearing, there is no evidence in the case file to suggest that the issue of the lawfulness of his initial or continuing detention was subjected to a meaningful examination, which would have required an assessment of the compliance of the detention with domestic procedural requirements, as well as a review of the reasonableness of the suspicion underpinning the arrest and the ensuing detention (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 100, ECHR 2000-IX).

 
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02

  It has been held by the Court that some measure of control of prisoners" contacts with the outside world is called for and is not of itself incompatible with the Convention (see Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts), and Aliev v. Ukraine, no. 41220/98, § 187, 29 April 2003).
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03

  KAVERZIN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02

  In determining whether the authorities have discharged their health-care obligations vis-à-vis a detainee in their charge, the Court's task is to assess the quality of the medical services provided to the detainee in the light of his state of health and "the practical demands of imprisonment" and to determine whether, in the circumstances of a particular case, the health-care standard applied was compatible with the human dignity of the detainee (see, for instance, Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, § 138, 15 May 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02

  The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention imposes an obligation on the State to protect the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty, for example by providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX, and Kudla, cited above, §§ 93-94).
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 71156/01

  MEMBERS OF THE GLDANI CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02

  Such an investigation must be launched ex officio, in the absence of an express complaint, if there are sufficiently clear indications that torture or other ill-treatment has occurred (see Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and Others v. Georgia, no. 71156/01, § 97, 3 May 2007).
• EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 20652/92

  DJAVIT AN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02

  The Court emphasises in this connection that it cannot be asserted, on the one hand, that there has been a violation of an Article of the Convention because a State has not provided a remedy, while on the other hand, that any such remedy, if provided, would be null and void (see Cyprus v. Turkey, cited above, § 101; Djavit An v. Turkey, no. 20652/92, § 31, ECHR 2003-III; and Adali, cited above, § 187).
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  AYSU v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02

  In the Court's opinion, his submissions, coupled with the injuries noted in the medical reports issued in the aftermath of his arrest, created an arguable claim that the first applicant might have been subjected to excessive use of force or ill-treatment during his arrest and had thus triggered the obligation to conduct an ex officio investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, Aksoy, cited above, § 98-99, ECHR 1996-VI; Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 112, ECHR 1999-IV; Özbey v. Turkey (dec.), no. 31883/96, 8 March 2001; Arat v. Turkey, no. 10309/03, § 43, 10 November 2009; and Aysu v. Turkey, no. 44021/07, § 40, 13 March 2012).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02

  Moreover, contrary to the Government's allegation, the fact that he did not explicitly invoke Article 5 of the Convention during those proceedings cannot be held against him, as he raised the substance of his Article 5 complaints before the relevant courts (see Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, §§ 24-32, Series A no. 236, and Karapanagiotou and Others v. Greece, no. 1571/08, § 29, 28 October 2010).
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 33834/03

  RIVIERE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 37410/97

  KAMIL UZUN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10

  Menschenrechtsgerichtshof verurteilt Türkei wegen Online-Zensur
• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 17056/06

  Micallef ./. Malta
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 3843/02
• EGMR, 25.04.2006 - 19807/92

  ERDOGAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere
• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09

  AUSTIN ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 25165/94

  AKDENIZ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 24919/03

  MATHEW CONTRE LES PAYS-BAS
• EGMR, 27.10.2009 - 45653/99

  ANDREOU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 38187/97

  ADALI v. TURKEY

• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 66490/09

  MOCKUTE v. LITHUANIA

  The Court points out that in principle it is not its task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts (see Kyriacou Tsiakkourmas and Others v. Turkey, no. 13320/02, § 165, 2 June 2015, and Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, § 169, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 14800/18

  BALKASI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  The Court notes at the outset the Government's argument that, in order to exhaust domestic remedies, the remaining applicants should have instituted civil and administrative proceedings to obtain redress for the alleged breach of Article 3. It reiterates, however, that in the area of unlawful use of force by State agents, civil or administrative proceedings aimed solely at awarding damages, rather than ensuring the identification and punishment of those responsible, are not adequate and effective remedies capable of providing redress for complaints based on the substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention (see Pihoni v. Albania, no. 74389/13, § 68, 13 February 2018, and Kyriacou Tsiakkourmas and Others v. Turkey, no. 13320/02, § 252, 2 June 2015).