Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AYDER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 18, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objections rejected (estoppel non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 with regard to inhuman treatment Not necessary to examine Art. 3 with regard to inhuman punishment Violation of Art. 8 and P1-1 Violation of Art. 13 Not necessary to ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 15.05.1995 - 23656/94
• EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 23656/94

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

  Dieter Krombach

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 23656/94

  The Court will make an award in respect of costs and expenses in so far as these were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, among other authorities, Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 106, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 23656/94

  They are therefore estopped from raising objections to the admissibility of the application before the Court (see Loizidou v. Turkey, judgment of 23 March 1995 (preliminary objections), Series A no. 310, p. 19, § 44).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 23656/94

  In the present case, the Court has found established that the applicants' homes and possessions were destroyed, disclosing violations of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicants' complaints in this regard are therefore "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52, Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 98, ECHR 2000-VII).

 
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 23656/94

  In the present case, the Court has found established that the applicants' homes and possessions were destroyed, disclosing violations of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicants' complaints in this regard are therefore "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52, Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 98, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 23656/94

  While the Court is not bound by the Commission's findings of facts and remains free to make its own assessment in the light of all the material before it, it is however only in exceptional circumstances that it will exercise its powers in this area (see, among other authorities, Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 63, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 23656/94

  Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law, in particular in the sense that its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by the acts or omissions of the authorities of the respondent State (see Aksoy v. Turkey, cited above, § 95; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 117, ECHR 1999-IV; and Timurtas v. Turkey, cited above, § 111).

• EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 38450/05

  SABANCHIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Dans de telles affaires, la Cour a généralement limité ses conclusions à l'article 2. En revanche, elle a constaté la violation de l'article 3 en raison d'une souffrance morale endurée par des requérants en conséquence d'actes commis par les forces de sécurité, qui avaient brûlé leurs maisons et leurs biens sous leurs yeux (Selçuk et Asker c. Turquie, 24 avril 1998, §§ 77-80, Recueil 1998-II, Yöyler c. Turquie, no 26973/95, §§ 74-76, 24 juillet 2003, et Ayder et autres c. Turquie, no 23656/94, §§ 109-111, 8 janvier 2004).
• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 50222/99

  KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA

  The proceedings under the State Responsibility for Damage Act, which were premised on the strict liability of the authorities and could only result in the award of compensation (see paragraph 45 above), but not in the punishment of those responsible for the ill-treatment, cannot be considered as satisfying the procedural requirements of Article 3 (see, mutatis mutandis, Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2431, § 74, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 79, ECHR 1999-IV, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 83, ECHR 2000-VII, Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 61, ECHR 2000-VII, Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 57, 14 December 2000, Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 105, 4 May 2001, Avsar v. Turkey [GC], no. 25657/94, § 377, ECHR 2001-VII, and Ayder v. Turkey, no. 23656/94, § 98, 8 January 2004).
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 19841/06

  BAGDONAVICIUS ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Ils se réfèrent à cet égard à l'arrêt Ayder et autres c. Turquie (no 23656/94, §§ 119-120, 8 janvier 2004).
• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 22089/07

  ARKHESTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In such cases the Court has normally limited its findings to Article 2. On the other hand, the Court has found a violation of Article 3 on account of mental suffering endured by applicants as a result of the acts of security forces who had burnt down their homes and possessions before their eyes (see Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey, 24 April 1998, §§ 77-80, Reports 1998-II; Yöyler v. Turkey, no. 26973/95, §§ 74-76, 24 July 2003; and Ayder and Others v. Turkey, no. 23656/94, §§ 109-11, 8 January 2004).
• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 7988/09

  ZALOV AND KHAKULOVA v. RUSSIA

  In such cases the Court has normally limited its findings to Article 2. On the other hand, the Court has found a violation of Article 3 on account of mental suffering endured by applicants as a result of the acts of security forces who had burnt down their homes and possessions before their eyes (see Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey, 24 April 1998, §§ 77-80, Reports 1998-II; Yöyler v. Turkey, no. 26973/95, §§ 74-76, 24 July 2003; and Ayder and Others v. Turkey, no. 23656/94, §§ 109-11, 8 January 2004).