Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ÖZÜTEMIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 64289/12

  Nor do they argue that the death had resulted from the inaction of the authorities in the face of a real and immediate risk to the life of Ali Özütemiz which they knew or ought to have known (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-II), that it had involved a dangerous activity occurring under the responsibility of the public authorities (see, for instance, Öneryildiz, cited above, § 93), or that it had been caused by negligence that went beyond a mere error of judgment or carelessness (see, for instance, Mehmet Sentürk and Bekir Sentürk, cited above).
• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 40448/06

  AYDOGDU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 64289/12

  Although this obligation may require the provision of a criminal-law remedy in certain special circumstances (see, for instance, Öneryildiz, cited above, §§ 93-96; Mehmet Sentürk and Bekir Sentürk v. Turkey, no. 13423/09, §§ 104-106, ECHR 2013; Oruk v. Turkey, no. 33647/04, §§ 50 and 65, 4 February 2014; Mikhno v. Ukraine, no. 32514/12, § 131, 1 September 2016; Aydogdu v. Turkey, no. 40448/06, §§ 62-64 and §§ 87-88, 30 August 2016; and Gençarslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 62609/12, §§ 19-22, 14 March 2017), the Court stresses that neither Article 2 nor any other provision of the Convention guarantees an applicant a right to secure the prosecution and conviction of a third party or a right to "private revenge" (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004-I, and Öneryildiz, cited above, § 147).
• EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 23401/04

  RAILEAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 64289/12

  The Court recalls that the State's positive obligation to protect the right to life has also been found to arise in the context of deaths resulting from traffic accidents (see, for instance, Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007; Railean v. Moldova, no. 23401/04, § 30, 5 January 2010; Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 23302/03, § 72, 24 May 2011; Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 56, 12 January 2012; and Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 50, 31 July 2012).

 
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 23302/03

  ANNA TODOROVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 64289/12

  The Court recalls that the State's positive obligation to protect the right to life has also been found to arise in the context of deaths resulting from traffic accidents (see, for instance, Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007; Railean v. Moldova, no. 23401/04, § 30, 5 January 2010; Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 23302/03, § 72, 24 May 2011; Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 56, 12 January 2012; and Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 50, 31 July 2012).
• EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  MIKHNO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 64289/12

  Although this obligation may require the provision of a criminal-law remedy in certain special circumstances (see, for instance, Öneryildiz, cited above, §§ 93-96; Mehmet Sentürk and Bekir Sentürk v. Turkey, no. 13423/09, §§ 104-106, ECHR 2013; Oruk v. Turkey, no. 33647/04, §§ 50 and 65, 4 February 2014; Mikhno v. Ukraine, no. 32514/12, § 131, 1 September 2016; Aydogdu v. Turkey, no. 40448/06, §§ 62-64 and §§ 87-88, 30 August 2016; and Gençarslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 62609/12, §§ 19-22, 14 March 2017), the Court stresses that neither Article 2 nor any other provision of the Convention guarantees an applicant a right to secure the prosecution and conviction of a third party or a right to "private revenge" (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004-I, and Öneryildiz, cited above, § 147).
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 37393/02

  RAJKOWSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 64289/12

  The Court recalls that the State's positive obligation to protect the right to life has also been found to arise in the context of deaths resulting from traffic accidents (see, for instance, Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007; Railean v. Moldova, no. 23401/04, § 30, 5 January 2010; Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 23302/03, § 72, 24 May 2011; Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 56, 12 January 2012; and Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 50, 31 July 2012).
• EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 62609/12

  GENÇARSLAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 64289/12

  Although this obligation may require the provision of a criminal-law remedy in certain special circumstances (see, for instance, Öneryildiz, cited above, §§ 93-96; Mehmet Sentürk and Bekir Sentürk v. Turkey, no. 13423/09, §§ 104-106, ECHR 2013; Oruk v. Turkey, no. 33647/04, §§ 50 and 65, 4 February 2014; Mikhno v. Ukraine, no. 32514/12, § 131, 1 September 2016; Aydogdu v. Turkey, no. 40448/06, §§ 62-64 and §§ 87-88, 30 August 2016; and Gençarslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 62609/12, §§ 19-22, 14 March 2017), the Court stresses that neither Article 2 nor any other provision of the Convention guarantees an applicant a right to secure the prosecution and conviction of a third party or a right to "private revenge" (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004-I, and Öneryildiz, cited above, § 147).
• EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 15339/02

  BUDAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 64289/12

  The Court notes that the basic principles concerning a State's positive obligation to protect the right to life, including against non-intentional infringements of that right, were set out by the Grand Chamber in the case of Öneryildiz v. Turkey ([GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 89-96, ECHR 2004-XII), and further elaborated on in Budayeva and Others v. Russia (nos. 15339/02 and 4 others, §§ 128-145, ECHR 2008 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 10904/05

  PRYNDA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 64289/12

  The Court recalls that the State's positive obligation to protect the right to life has also been found to arise in the context of deaths resulting from traffic accidents (see, for instance, Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007; Railean v. Moldova, no. 23401/04, § 30, 5 January 2010; Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 23302/03, § 72, 24 May 2011; Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 56, 12 January 2012; and Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 50, 31 July 2012).
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 13423/09

  MEHMET SENTÜRK ET BEKIR SENTÜRK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 64289/12

  Although this obligation may require the provision of a criminal-law remedy in certain special circumstances (see, for instance, Öneryildiz, cited above, §§ 93-96; Mehmet Sentürk and Bekir Sentürk v. Turkey, no. 13423/09, §§ 104-106, ECHR 2013; Oruk v. Turkey, no. 33647/04, §§ 50 and 65, 4 February 2014; Mikhno v. Ukraine, no. 32514/12, § 131, 1 September 2016; Aydogdu v. Turkey, no. 40448/06, §§ 62-64 and §§ 87-88, 30 August 2016; and Gençarslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 62609/12, §§ 19-22, 14 March 2017), the Court stresses that neither Article 2 nor any other provision of the Convention guarantees an applicant a right to secure the prosecution and conviction of a third party or a right to "private revenge" (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004-I, and Öneryildiz, cited above, § 147).
• EGMR, 04.02.2014 - 33647/04

  ORUK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99

  PEREZ c. FRANCE