Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAN v. TURKEY

  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 78906/11

  Nor does she 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 her son 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 - 78906/11

  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, 14.03.2017 - 62609/12

  GENÇARSLAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 78906/11

  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 - 78906/11

  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, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  MIKHNO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 78906/11

  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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 78906/11

  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, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99

  PEREZ c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 78906/11

  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, 09.04.2013 - 13423/09

  MEHMET SENTÜRK ET BEKIR SENTÜRK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 78906/11

  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).