Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01, 26968/02, 36397/03   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2009,62188
EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01, 26968/02, 36397/03 (https://dejure.org/2009,62188)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.03.2009 - 71912/01, 26968/02, 36397/03 (https://dejure.org/2009,62188)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. März 2009 - 71912/01, 26968/02, 36397/03 (https://dejure.org/2009,62188)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,62188) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    BÖKE AND KANDEMIR v. TURKEY

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-3-c Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (21)

  • EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 18996/06

    MIKIASHVILI v. GEORGIA

    The Court recalls at the outset, as it has held in previous cases, that the conclusion reached in paragraph 85 above does not preclude the applicant's complaint in relation to Article 3 from being "arguable" for the purposes of the positive obligation to investigate (see, Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009; and Aysu v. Turkey, no. 44021/07, § 40, 13 March 2012).
  • EGMR, 22.09.2016 - 1574/06

    SAVCHENKO v. UKRAINE

    Although in the present case the Court has not found it proved, on account of a lack of evidence, that the applicant was ill-treated by the police after his arrest, that does not in principle preclude the complaint in relation to Article 3 from being "arguable" for the purposes of the positive obligation to investigate (see Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009, and Aleksandr Smirnov v. Ukraine, no. 38683/06, § 57, 15 July 2010).
  • EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 72174/10

    YIGITDOGAN v. TURKEY (No. 2)

    Nevertheless, as it has held in previous cases, this does not preclude the applicant's complaint in relation to Article 3 from being "arguable" for the purposes of the positive obligation to investigate (see Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009, and Aysu v. Turkey, no. 44021/07, § 40, 13 March 2012).
  • EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 8077/08

    SAKIR KAÇMAZ v. TURKEY

    Nevertheless, in the absence of any evidence in support of the applicant's allegations, the Court considers that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its substantive aspect in respect of the ill-treatment to which the applicant was allegedly subjected during his detention in police custody (see Gülbahar and Others v. Turkey, no. 5264/03, § 54, 21 October 2008; and Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 50, 10 March 2009).
  • EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 7067/06

    ERISEN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    Nevertheless, as it has held in previous cases, that does not preclude his complaint in relation to Article 3 from being "arguable" for the purposes of the positive obligation to investigate (see Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009).
  • EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 34364/08

    DILEK ASLAN v. TURKEY

    Nevertheless, as it has held in previous cases, that does not preclude her complaint in relation to Article 3 from being "arguable" for the purposes of the obligation to investigate (see, among many other authorities, Yasa v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, § 112, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI; Ay, cited above; Gülbahar and Others, cited above, § 72; Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009; Gök and Güler v. Turkey, no. 74307/01, § 39, 28 July 2009; and Aysu v. Turkey, no. 44021/07, § 40, 13 March 2012).
  • EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

    AYSU v. TURKEY

    Nevertheless, as it has held in previous cases, that does not preclude this complaint in relation to Article 3 from being "arguable" for the purposes of the positive obligation to investigate (see, Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009).
  • EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 17362/03

    CEVAT SOYSAL v. TURKEY

    It concludes, therefore, that there is no need to make a separate ruling on the applicant's remaining complaints under this provision (see Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007, Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, § 132, 22 July 2008, Güveç v. Turkey, no. 70337/01, § 135, 20 January 2009, and Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 73, 10 March 2009).
  • EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 37871/08

    ERTUS v. TURKEY

    Nevertheless, as it has held in previous cases, that does not preclude his complaint in relation to Article 3 from being "arguable" for the purposes of the State's positive obligation to investigate (see, Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009).
  • EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 58210/08

    TARKAN YAVAS v. TURKEY

    Nevertheless, as it has held in previous cases, that does not preclude this complaint in relation to Article 3 from being "arguable" for the purposes of the State's positive obligation to investigate (see, Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009).
  • EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 28451/08

    ÇARKÇI v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 22568/05

    COSAR v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 5911/05

    KLEUTIN v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 36144/09

    ATHAN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 28.08.2012 - 37552/06

    AHMET DURAN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02

    GUL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 74307/01

    GÖK AND GÜLER v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 20406/05

    MEHMET ALI AYHAN c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 5256/02

    KARABIL c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 33735/02

    ÜMIT AYDIN c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 10.11.2009 - 10309/03

    ARAT v. TURKEY

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht