Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SATIK v. TURKEY (No. 2)

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 60999/00
• EGMR, 04.09.2019 - 60999/00

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 60999/00

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 60999/00

  33097/06 and 57834/00, §§ 95-99, ECHR 2004-IV; and Ergin v. Turkey (no. 6), no. 47533/99, §§ 15-18, 4 May 2006.
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 60999/00

  In assessing evidence, the Court has generally applied the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (see Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 60999/00

  The Court reiterates that where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured by the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused and to produce evidence casting doubt on the victim's allegations, particularly if those allegations were corroborated by medical reports, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; Aksoy v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, p. 2278, § 62; Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-111; and Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, p. 26, § 34).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 60999/00

  Relying on the Court's judgments in the cases of Ahmet Sadık v. Greece (judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, § 34) and Cardot v. France (judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, § 30), the Government claimed that the applicant had failed to raise, even in substance, his complaints of ill-treatment before the national authorities and that therefore he had not availed himself of the remedies in domestic law.
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 60999/00

  The Court reiterates that where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured by the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused and to produce evidence casting doubt on the victim's allegations, particularly if those allegations were corroborated by medical reports, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; Aksoy v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, p. 2278, § 62; Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-111; and Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, p. 26, § 34).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 60999/00

  While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, §§ 45-46; Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1462, § 34).

• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 46227/11

  KILIÇ v. TURKEY

  Accordingly, any objection filed by the applicants regarding the composition of the court for the simple reason that the judges sitting on the bench were members of the army would have been doomed to failure (see, mutadis mutandis, Satik v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 60999/00, § 39, 8 July 2008, and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 29870/96, 25 May 2000).