Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ADIYAMAN v. TURKEY

  Art. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2010 - 58933/00

  Having regard to the undisputed information provided by the applicant that a number of killings by unknown perpetrators had taken place in Silvan between 30 April 1992 and 14 October 1993, to its previous findings in similar Turkish cases to the effect that in 1993 and 1994, as a result of the conflict in south-east Turkey, there were rumours that contra-guerrilla elements were involved in targeting persons suspected of supporting the PKK (see, for example, Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 89, ECHR 2000-III, and Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI) and to the fact that in a number of official documents the deceased is referred to as a PKK sympathiser, the applicant's allegation that her husband was killed at least with the connivance of State agents cannot therefore be discarded as prima facie untenable.
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 37715/97

  SHANAGHAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2010 - 58933/00

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning a State's obligations under Article 2 of the Convention under both its substantive and procedural limbs (see, in particular, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-147, Series A no. 324; Buldan v. Turkey, no. 28298/95, §§ 73-75, 20 April 2004; Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, §§ 135-136, 16 July 2002; Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, no. 37715/97, §§ 85-92, 4 May 2001; Finucane v. the United Kingdom, no. 29178/95, §§ 67-71, ECHR 2003-VIII; Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands, GC, no. 52391/99, § 321, ECHR 2007-... ; and Dölek v. Turkey, no. 39541/98, §§ 70-75, 2 October 2007).
• EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 27602/95

  ULKU EKINCI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2010 - 58933/00

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning a State's obligations under Article 2 of the Convention under both its substantive and procedural limbs (see, in particular, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-147, Series A no. 324; Buldan v. Turkey, no. 28298/95, §§ 73-75, 20 April 2004; Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, §§ 135-136, 16 July 2002; Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, no. 37715/97, §§ 85-92, 4 May 2001; Finucane v. the United Kingdom, no. 29178/95, §§ 67-71, ECHR 2003-VIII; Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands, GC, no. 52391/99, § 321, ECHR 2007-... ; and Dölek v. Turkey, no. 39541/98, §§ 70-75, 2 October 2007).

 
• EGMR, 01.07.2003 - 29178/95

  FINUCANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2010 - 58933/00

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning a State's obligations under Article 2 of the Convention under both its substantive and procedural limbs (see, in particular, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-147, Series A no. 324; Buldan v. Turkey, no. 28298/95, §§ 73-75, 20 April 2004; Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, §§ 135-136, 16 July 2002; Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, no. 37715/97, §§ 85-92, 4 May 2001; Finucane v. the United Kingdom, no. 29178/95, §§ 67-71, ECHR 2003-VIII; Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands, GC, no. 52391/99, § 321, ECHR 2007-... ; and Dölek v. Turkey, no. 39541/98, §§ 70-75, 2 October 2007).
• EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 28298/95

  BULDAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2010 - 58933/00

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning a State's obligations under Article 2 of the Convention under both its substantive and procedural limbs (see, in particular, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-147, Series A no. 324; Buldan v. Turkey, no. 28298/95, §§ 73-75, 20 April 2004; Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, §§ 135-136, 16 July 2002; Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, no. 37715/97, §§ 85-92, 4 May 2001; Finucane v. the United Kingdom, no. 29178/95, §§ 67-71, ECHR 2003-VIII; Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands, GC, no. 52391/99, § 321, ECHR 2007-... ; and Dölek v. Turkey, no. 39541/98, §§ 70-75, 2 October 2007).
• EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 39541/98

  DÖLEK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2010 - 58933/00

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning a State's obligations under Article 2 of the Convention under both its substantive and procedural limbs (see, in particular, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-147, Series A no. 324; Buldan v. Turkey, no. 28298/95, §§ 73-75, 20 April 2004; Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, §§ 135-136, 16 July 2002; Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, no. 37715/97, §§ 85-92, 4 May 2001; Finucane v. the United Kingdom, no. 29178/95, §§ 67-71, ECHR 2003-VIII; Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands, GC, no. 52391/99, § 321, ECHR 2007-... ; and Dölek v. Turkey, no. 39541/98, §§ 70-75, 2 October 2007).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2010 - 58933/00

  The Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning a State's obligations under Article 2 of the Convention under both its substantive and procedural limbs (see, in particular, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-147, Series A no. 324; Buldan v. Turkey, no. 28298/95, §§ 73-75, 20 April 2004; Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, §§ 135-136, 16 July 2002; Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, no. 37715/97, §§ 85-92, 4 May 2001; Finucane v. the United Kingdom, no. 29178/95, §§ 67-71, ECHR 2003-VIII; Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands, GC, no. 52391/99, § 321, ECHR 2007-... ; and Dölek v. Turkey, no. 39541/98, §§ 70-75, 2 October 2007).

• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 39374/09

  DUB c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  À ce sujet, elle rappelle avoir déjà conclu à la non-violation du volet procédural de l'article 2 de la Convention après avoir jugé que l'enquête était adéquate et constaté que les responsables des atteintes à la vie avaient été poursuivis et/ou condamnés, quand bien même des atermoiements de la procédure avaient pu être constatés (voir, par exemple, Bayrak et autres c. Turquie, no 42771/98, §§ 54-55, 12 janvier 2006, Adiyaman c. Turquie (déc.), no 58933/00, 9 février 2010, et Sarbyanova-Pashaliyska et Pashaliyska c. Bulgarie, no 3524/14, §§ 41-43, 12 janvier 2017).