Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VARNAVA ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Exception préliminaire rejetée (ratione temporis délai de six mois) Violation de l'art. 2 (volet procédural) Violation de l'art. 3 (volet matériel) Violation de l'art. 5 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VARNAVA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objections dismissed (ratione temporis six-month period) Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 14.04.1998 - 16064/90
• EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90, 16073/90
• EGMR, 18.09.2009 - 16064/90
• EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 16064/90
• EGMR, 25.09.2014 - 16064/90
• EGMR - 16064/90 (anhängig)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94

  AKDENIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 16064/90

  They argued that the same held true in this case, in particular as there was no reason why the first applicants in this case were not presumed to be dead as in other disappearance cases (e.g. Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, 31 May 2001).

  The inter-State case concerned the phenomenon of disappearances, which, although linked to a specific point of time when the missing person was last seen and the surrounding circumstances, may be distinguished from conventional cases of use of lethal force or unlawful killings which are dealt with under Article 2. In the latter cases, the fate of the victim is known; the former are characterised by an ongoing situation of uncertainty and, not infrequently, callous inaction, obfuscation and concealment (see, amongst many examples, Kurt v. Turkey, judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, §§ 127-128, Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 84, 97, ECHR 2000-VI § 84, 97, Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, § 93, 31 May 2001, Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, §§ 80, 90, 14 November 2000; Imakeyeva v. Russia, §§ 150 165, 9 November 2006, Baysayeva v. Russia, §§ 119, 127 April 2007).

  While it may be noted that in the context of the individual cases arising out of events in south-east Turkey and the conflict in the Chechen Republic, where there were, at the relevant times, numerous reported instances of forced disappearances, individual applicants have nonetheless been required to give an evidential basis for finding that their relatives were taken into some form of custody by agents of the State (see e.g. Kurt v. Turkey, judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, § 99, Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, § 84, 31 May 2001, Sarli v. Turkey, 24490/94, 22 May 2001; Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 141, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)), the Court considers that the situation in the present case may be distinguished.

• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 16064/90

  The inter-State case concerned the phenomenon of disappearances, which, although linked to a specific point of time when the missing person was last seen and the surrounding circumstances, may be distinguished from conventional cases of use of lethal force or unlawful killings which are dealt with under Article 2. In the latter cases, the fate of the victim is known; the former are characterised by an ongoing situation of uncertainty and, not infrequently, callous inaction, obfuscation and concealment (see, amongst many examples, Kurt v. Turkey, judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, §§ 127-128, Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 84, 97, ECHR 2000-VI § 84, 97, Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, § 93, 31 May 2001, Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, §§ 80, 90, 14 November 2000; Imakeyeva v. Russia, §§ 150 165, 9 November 2006, Baysayeva v. Russia, §§ 119, 127 April 2007).

  In the Timurtas judgment (Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 83, ECHR 2000-VI) the Court gave the following assessment:.

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 16064/90

  The Court, for its part, endorses the application of this standard, all the more so since it was first articulated in the context of a previous inter-State case and has, since the date of the adoption of the judgment in that case, become part of the Court's established case-law (for a recent example, see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).".

 
• EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 51967/99

  TEREN AKSAKAL v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 16064/90

  Even leaving aside Moldovan, there is the recent Teren Aksakal v. Turkey judgment (no. 51967/99, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)) where, in the partly dissenting opinion of Judges Türmen and Mularoni, the Blecic principle has been once again been followed:.
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 16064/90

  "81. In conclusion, while it is true that from the ratification date onwards all of the State's acts and omissions must conform to the Convention (see YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 16, § 40), the Convention imposes no specific obligation on the Contracting States to provide redress for wrongs or damage caused prior to that date (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 38, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 16064/90

  It marks out the temporal limits of supervision carried out by the Court and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible (Walker v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 47311/99

  ERTAN OZKAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 16064/90

  International treaties, which have attained the status of customary law, impose obligations on combatant States as regards care of wounded, prisoners of war and civilians[8]; Article 2 of the Convention certainly extends so far as to require Contracting States to take such steps as may be reasonably available to them to protect the lives of those not, or no longer, engaged in hostilities (see, mutatis mutandis, Ertan Özkan v. Turkey, no. 47311/99, §§ 301, 307-308, 9 October 2003).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 16064/90

  Given previous findings and the circumstances of the disappearances at a time and at locations which were, or very shortly thereafter were, under the control of the forces of the respondent State or those acting under their aegis, the Court considers that an obligation arises for the respondent State to account for their fate (see, mutatis mutandis, Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-II (extracts).
• EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 64320/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 16064/90

  Where death occurred prior to the acceptance of the right of individual petition, no procedural obligation could arise subsequently (Moldovan and Others v. Romania, nos. 41138/98 and 64320/01, (dec.) 13 March 2001).
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 1398/03

  MARKOVIC ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 16064/90

  Further, they pointed out, citing Markovic and Others v. Italy ([GC], no. 1398/03, § 111, ECHR 2006-...) that the procedural obligation was first applied in the Court's jurisprudence in McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324) and argued that it should not be retroactively applied to the events in this case.
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM