Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DEMIR v. TURKEY

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 39583/05

  PEREVEDENTSEVY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 58402/09

  While the above-mentioned positive obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 8 are directly secured to anyone within the jurisdiction of the Contracting States (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 239, Series A no. 25, and Scordino and Others v. Italy (no. 1) (dec.), no. 36813/97, 27 March 2003), the States have a reinforced duty towards people who are under their exclusive control, such as conscripts or individuals carrying out compulsory military service (see, for instance, Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-41, 24 March 2009; Perevedentsevy v. Russia, no. 39583/05, §§ 93-94, 24 April 2014; and Tikhonova v. Russia, no. 13596/05, § 68, 30 April 2014).
• EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 21166/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 58402/09

  These obligations must, however, be interpreted in a way which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities, bearing in mind, inter alia, the operational choices which must be made in terms of priorities and resources (see, for instance, Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, §§ 134-135, ECHR 2008 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 17423/05

  KOLYADENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 58402/09

  For the most part, the positive obligations that arise under Article 8 in the context of a person's physical and psychological integrity correspond with those under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, and require the national authorities to take the same types of practical measures as those expected of them under that provision (see Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 17423/05, 20534/05, 20678/05, 23263/05, 24283/05 and 35673/05, § 216, 28 February 2012; and Brincat and Others, cited above).

 
• EGMR, 01.03.2012 - 30268/03

  DMITRIY SAZONOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 58402/09

  In such circumstances, the provision of timely and adequate medical treatment becomes key in assessing the liability of State authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Dmitriy Sazonov v. Russia, no. 30268/03, § 40, 1 March 2012 and the cases cited therein for a similar approach under Article 3 in custodial settings, where the Court made it clear that contracting tuberculosis during detention did not in itself imply a violation of Article 3, provided that the applicants concerned received adequate treatment for it).
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 20184/06

  SÜRER c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 58402/09

  The Court further stresses that it has thus far been reluctant to impose rigid standards in respect of the specific medical tests to be performed prior to or during military service, assessing each case on its facts and leaving the States some margin of appreciation in this matter (see, for instance, Sürer v. Turkey, no. 20184/06, § 38, 31 May 2016; see also Gavrilita v. Romania, no. 10921/03, § 33, 22 June 2010 for a similar approach in a detention context).
• EGMR, 04.01.2005 - 14462/03

  PENTIACOVA ET AUTRES c. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 58402/09

  The Court notes that, although the object of Article 8 is essentially the protection of the individual against arbitrary interference by public authorities, it does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference, since it may also give rise to positive obligations inherent in effective "respect" for private and family life (see Pentiacova and 48 Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 14462/03, 4 January 2005; Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 114, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Jeunesse v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 12738/10, § 106, 3 October 2014; and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 73, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 22.06.2010 - 10921/03

  GAVRILITA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 58402/09

  The Court further stresses that it has thus far been reluctant to impose rigid standards in respect of the specific medical tests to be performed prior to or during military service, assessing each case on its facts and leaving the States some margin of appreciation in this matter (see, for instance, Sürer v. Turkey, no. 20184/06, § 38, 31 May 2016; see also Gavrilita v. Romania, no. 10921/03, § 33, 22 June 2010 for a similar approach in a detention context).
• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 75725/01

  TROCELLIER v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 58402/09

  The Court notes that the right to physical integrity relied on by the applicants is an aspect of the right to respect for private life, and thus finds protection under Article 8 of the Convention (see, for instance, mutatis mutandis, Raninen v. Finland, 16 December 1997, § 63, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII; Botta v. Italy, 24 February 1998, § 32, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; Y.F. v. Turkey, no. 24209/94, § 33, ECHR 2003-IX; and Trocellier v. France (dec.), no. 75725/01, ECHR 2006-XIV).
• EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 15339/02

  BUDAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 58402/09

  These obligations must, however, be interpreted in a way which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities, bearing in mind, inter alia, the operational choices which must be made in terms of priorities and resources (see, for instance, Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, §§ 134-135, ECHR 2008 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 7188/03

  CHEMBER v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 58402/09

  Such rules must require the adoption of practical measures aimed at the effective protection of conscripts against the dangers inherent in military life, and appropriate procedures for identifying shortcomings and errors liable to be committed in that regard by those in charge at different levels (see Kilinç and Others v. Turkey, no. 40145/98, § 41, 7 June 2005; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 91, 17 January 2013; and Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 50, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 07.06.2005 - 40145/98

  KILINÇ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 23796/10

  VASILEVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …
• EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 52013/08

  MOSENDZ v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 30.04.2014 - 13596/05

  TIKHONOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 27866/03

  BEKER v. TURKEY