Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TEPE v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 18, Art. 34, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Art. 2 with regard to abduction and killing Violation of Art. 2 with regard to lack of effective investigation No violation of Art. 3 and 5 Not necessary to examine Art. 10 Violation of Art. 13 No violation of Art. 14 No violation of Art. 18 Failure ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 25.11.1996 - 27244/95
• EGMR, 09.05.2003 - 27244/95

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2003 - 27244/95

  In the Court's opinion, his statement confirms the Convention institutions" earlier findings concerning the inadequacy and unreliability of custody records (see Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704, §§ 137-138, 27 February 2001, unreported; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-IV; Aydın v. Turkey judgment of 25 September 1997, Reports 1997-VI, Opinion of the Commission, p. 1941, § 172), that such records cannot in general be relied upon to prove that a person had or had not been taken into custody.
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2003 - 27244/95

  It is undisputed that there were a significant number of killings which became known as the "unknown perpetrator killing" phenomenon and which included prominent Kurdish figures and other journalists (see Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 89, ECHR 2000-III and Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2003 - 27244/95

  A failure on a Government's part to submit such information which is in their hands without a satisfactory explanation may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 66 and 70, ECHR 2000-VI).

 
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2003 - 27244/95

  The Court recalls that, in assessing evidence, it adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 264, ECHR 2002).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2003 - 27244/95

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings also requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, pp. 45-46, §§ 146-147).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2003 - 27244/95

  However, according to its established case-law, that does not preclude the complaint in relation to Article 2 from being an "arguable" one for the purposes of the Article 13 (see the following judgments: Orhan, cited above, § 386; Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52, Kaya, cited above, pp. 330-31, § 107, and Yasa, cited above, § 113).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2003 - 27244/95

  Where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and as a general rule it is for those courts to assess the evidence before them (see Klaas v. Germany, judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, p. 17, § 29).

• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 31821/96

  ISSA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The reasonableness of that assertion must be tested in the light of the documentary and other evidence which the parties have submitted to the Court, having regard to the standard of proof which it habitually employs when ascertaining whether there is a basis in fact for an allegation of unlawful killing, namely proof "beyond reasonable doubt"(Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 264, 18 June 2002; Tepe v. Turkey, no. 27244/95, § 125, 9 May 2003; and Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, § 109, ECHR 2004-... (extracts)), it being understood that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact.
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 26307/95

  TAHSIN ACAR c. TURQUIE

  The same applies to delays by the State in submitting information, which prejudices the establishment of facts in a case (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 66 and 70, ECHR 2000-VI; Orhan, cited above, § 266; and Tepe v. Turkey, no. 27244/95, § 128, 9 May 2003).

  This has also been said in Tepe v. Turkey, no. 27244/95, § 128, 9 May 2003, and TekdaÄ?, cited above, § 57.

• EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 26589/06

  SAKINE EPÖZDEMIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court observes that the abduction and killing of Mr Tepe's son and the role of General K.T. was examined by it in its judgment in the case of Tepe v. Turkey (no. 27244/95, §§ 12, 20, 80-82, 85, 132, 141, 164 and 179, 9 May 2003).

  The majority refer in particular to the case of Ferhat Tepe, son of a colleague of Mr Sevket Epözdemir, who was abducted and killed some months before Mr Epözdemir was killed (paragraph 62 of the judgment, referring to Tepe v. Turkey, no. 27244/95, 9 May 2003).

 
• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01

  TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Le fait qu'un gouvernement ne fournisse pas les informations en sa possession sans donner à cela de justification satisfaisante peut non seulement altérer le respect par un Etat défendeur des obligations qui lui incombent au titre de l'article 38 § 1 a) de la Convention, mais peut aussi permettre de tirer des conclusions quant au bien-fondé des allégations (Timurtas c. Turquie, no 23531/94, §§ 66 et 70, CEDH 2000-VI, et Tepe c. Turquie, no 27244/95, § 128, 9 mai 2003).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 15256/05

  TCHANKOTADZE v. GEORGIA

  Here are the judgments (in chronological order) in which this pattern has been employed: Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey (24 April 1998, Reports 1998-II) - violations of Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; Kurt v. Turkey (25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III) - violations of Articles 3, 5 and 13, as well as a finding "that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under [former] Article 25 § 1" (as it was worded at that time); Tekin v. Turkey (9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV) - violations of Articles 3 and 13; Ergi v. Turkey (28 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV) - violations of Articles 2 and 13 and (former) Article 25 § 1 (as it was worded at that time); Sener v. Turkey (no. 26680/95, 18 July 2000) - violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 10; Tanli v. Turkey (no. 26129/95, ECHR 2001-III) - violations of Articles 2 (both substantive and procedural) and 13; Tepe v. Turkey (no. 27244/95, 9 May 2003) - violations of Articles 2 (procedural) and 13; Yöyler v. Turkey (no. 26973/95, 24 July 2003) - violation of Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; Tekdag v. Turkey (no. 27699/95, 15 January 2004) - violations of Article 2 (procedural) and 13, as well as a finding that the respondent Government had "failed to fulfil their obligation under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention"; Ipek v. Turkey (no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004-II) - violations of Articles 2 (both substantive and procedural), 3, 5 and 13 (the latter in conjunction with Articles 2, 3 and 5) of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as well as a finding that the respondent Government had "failed to fulfil their obligation under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention"; Altun v. Turkey (no. 24561/94, 1 June 2004) - violations of Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; Sirin Yilmaz v. Turkey (no. 35875/97, 29 July 2004) - violations of Article 2 (procedural) and 13; Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey (no. 32446/96, 2 November 2004) - violations of Article 3, Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 and Article 13; Dicle v. Turkey (no. 34685/97, 10 November 2004) - violations of Article 10 and Article 6 § 1; Mentese and Others v. Turkey (no. 36217/97, 18 January 2005) - violations of Articles 2 (procedural) and 13; Agtas and Others v. Turkey (no. 33240/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Artun and Others v. Turkey (no. 33239/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Keser and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33238/96 and 32965/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Kumru Yilmaz and Others v. Turkey (no. 36211/97, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Nesibe Haran v. Turkey (no. 28299/95, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 2 (procedural); Öztoprak and Others v. Turkey (no. 33247/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Sayli v. Turkey (no. 33243/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Aksakal v. Turkey (no. 37850/97, §§ 43-44, 15 February 2007) - a violation of Article 13; Khodorkovskiy (cited above) - violations of Article 3 and Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4; OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos (cited above) - violations of Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev (cited above) - violations of Article 3, Article 5 §§ 3 and 4, Article 6 § 1 (in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) and (d)) and Article 8 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as well as a finding that the authorities had failed "to respect their obligation under Article 34 of the Convention".
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 25760/94

  IPEK c. TURQUIE

  La Cour renvoie à sa jurisprudence récente confirmant que le critère à appliquer pour apprécier les éléments de preuve est celui de la preuve « au-delà de tout doute raisonnable'(Orhan c. Turquie, no 25656/94, § 264, 19 juin 2002 ; Tepe c. Turquie, no 27244/95, § 125, 9 mai 2003 ; et Yöyler c. Turquie, no 26973/95, § 52, 24 juillet 2003).
• EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 21689/93

  AHMET ÖZKAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Although these incorrect entries may have been the result of the non-contemporaneous recording of entries at "a chaotic moment", as was suggested by the gendarme responsible, Ä°zettin Atar[165], the Court considers it doubtful, in the light of its findings in other cases about the general unreliability and inaccuracy of custody records (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 105, ECHR 2000-VI, Ä°rfan Bilgin v. Turkey, no. 25659/94, § 130, ECHR 2001-VIII, Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, §§ 137-138, 27 February 2001, Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, §§ 371-372, 18 June 2002, and Tepe v. Turkey, no. 27244/95, § 148, 9 May 2003) as well as the findings of the CPT in respect of the keeping of custody records in Turkey[166], that this can be regarded as a merely isolated incident.
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 46286/99

  HACI ÖZEN v. TURKEY

  The Court recalls its earlier findings and those of the Commission concerning the inadequacy and unreliability of the custody records of the gendarmerie in south-east Turkey in the nineties (see Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-IV; Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 105, ECHR 2000-VI; Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, §§ 137-142, 27 February 2001; Orhan, cited above, §§ 371-372; Tepe v. Turkey, no. 27244/95, § 148, 9 May 2003; and Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, § 206, 6 April 2004).
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 33860/03

  BOZDEMIR AND YESILMEN v. TURKEY

  The Court notes in this connection that it has recorded deficiencies relating to entries in custody logbooks in previous cases (see Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, § 206, 6 April 2004; Tepe v. Turkey, no. 27244/95, § 148, 9 May 2003; Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 105, ECHR 2000-VI; Ä°rfan Bilgin v. Turkey, no. 25659/94, § 130, ECHR 2001-VIII; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-IV; Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, §§ 137-138, 27 February 2001; Orhan, cited above, § 313; and OsmanoÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, § 48, 24 January 2008).
• EGMR, 22.06.2010 - 6414/02

  KOSEVA v. BULGARIA

  An autopsy was performed on the day of the death by a forensic expert (contrast Tepe v. Turkey, no. 27244/95, § 181, 9 May 2003).
• EGMR, 22.03.2005 - 30951/96

  AY c. TURQUIE