Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 22947/93 und 22948/93   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2000,23636
EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 22947/93 und 22948/93 (https://dejure.org/2000,23636)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.10.2000 - 22947/93 und 22948/93 (https://dejure.org/2000,23636)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. Oktober 2000 - 22947/93 und 22948/93 (https://dejure.org/2000,23636)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2000,23636) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    AKKOC c. TURQUIE

    Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 10, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Exception préliminaire rejetée (forclusion) Non-violation de l'Art. 10 Violation de l'Art. 2 (défaut de protection du droit à la vie) Violation de l'Art. 2 (absence d'enquête effective) Violation de l'Art. 13 Violation de l'Art. 3 Manquement aux obligations ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    AKKOC v. TURKEY

    Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 10, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objection rejected (estoppel) No violation of Art. 10 Violation of Art. 2 (failure to protect life) Violation of Art. 2 (inadequacy of investigation) Violation of Art. 13 Violation of Art. 3 Failure to comply with obligations under Art. 34 Pecuniary ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

  • IRIS Merlin (Kurzinformation)

    Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (33)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93

    KILIÇ v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 22947/93
    The applicant referred to the Commission's finding, endorsed by the Court in two earlier cases (Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, ECHR 2000-III, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, ECHR 2000-III), that the legal structures in the south-east of Turkey during 1993 operated in such a manner that security-force personnel and others acting under their control or with their acquiescence were often unaccountable.

    In the cases of Kılıç v. Turkey (no. 22492/93, ECHR 2000-III) and Kaya v. Turkey (no. 22535/93, ECHR 2000-III), the applicants claimed GBP 30, 000 + GBP 40, 000 + GBP 2, 500 (without specifying the nature of the damage).

  • EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

    MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 22947/93
    The applicant referred to the Commission's finding, endorsed by the Court in two earlier cases (Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, ECHR 2000-III, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, ECHR 2000-III), that the legal structures in the south-east of Turkey during 1993 operated in such a manner that security-force personnel and others acting under their control or with their acquiescence were often unaccountable.

    In the cases of Kılıç v. Turkey (no. 22492/93, ECHR 2000-III) and Kaya v. Turkey (no. 22535/93, ECHR 2000-III), the applicants claimed GBP 30, 000 + GBP 40, 000 + GBP 2, 500 (without specifying the nature of the damage).

  • EGMR, 09.05.2000 - 20764/92

    ERTAK c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 22947/93
    2438-41, §§ 98-108; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-IV; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, §§ 101-11, ECHR 1999-IV; Mahmut Kaya and Kılıç, cited above, §§ 102-09 and §§ 78-83 respectively; Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, §§ 134-35, ECHR 2000-V; and Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 87-90, ECHR 2000-VI; concerning Article 13, see the judgments cited above, and the Aksoy v. Turkey judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, pp.

    The Akkoç case is clearly distinguishable from the cases of Ertak v. Turkey (no. 20764/92, ECHR 2000-V) and Çakıcı v. Turkey ([GC], no. 23657/94, ECHR 1999-IV), in which the respondent State was held directly responsible for the deaths, in other words as the perpetrator of the homicides in question.

     
  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

    ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 22947/93
    2438-41, §§ 98-108; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-IV; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, §§ 101-11, ECHR 1999-IV; Mahmut Kaya and Kılıç, cited above, §§ 102-09 and §§ 78-83 respectively; Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, §§ 134-35, ECHR 2000-V; and Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 87-90, ECHR 2000-VI; concerning Article 13, see the judgments cited above, and the Aksoy v. Turkey judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, pp.

    The Akkoç case is clearly distinguishable from the cases of Ertak v. Turkey (no. 20764/92, ECHR 2000-V) and Çakıcı v. Turkey ([GC], no. 23657/94, ECHR 1999-IV), in which the respondent State was held directly responsible for the deaths, in other words as the perpetrator of the homicides in question.

  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

    TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 22947/93
    2438-41, §§ 98-108; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-IV; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, §§ 101-11, ECHR 1999-IV; Mahmut Kaya and Kılıç, cited above, §§ 102-09 and §§ 78-83 respectively; Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, §§ 134-35, ECHR 2000-V; and Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 87-90, ECHR 2000-VI; concerning Article 13, see the judgments cited above, and the Aksoy v. Turkey judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, pp.
  • EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

    TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 22947/93
    2438-41, §§ 98-108; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-IV; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, §§ 101-11, ECHR 1999-IV; Mahmut Kaya and Kılıç, cited above, §§ 102-09 and §§ 78-83 respectively; Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, §§ 134-35, ECHR 2000-V; and Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 87-90, ECHR 2000-VI; concerning Article 13, see the judgments cited above, and the Aksoy v. Turkey judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, pp.
  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 22947/93
    Having regard to the severity of the ill-treatment suffered by the applicant and the surrounding circumstances, the Court finds that she was a victim of very serious and cruel suffering that may be characterised as torture (see also Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 96-105, ECHR 1999-V).
  • EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

    BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 22947/93
    As it has held in previous cases, however, that does not preclude the complaint in relation to Article 2 from being an "arguable" one for the purposes of Article 13 (see the Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52, and the Kaya and Yasa judgments cited above, pp. 330-31, § 107, and p. 2442, § 113, respectively).
  • EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

    BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 22947/93
    As regards the applicant's claims for loss of earnings, the Court's case-law establishes that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention and that this may, in the appropriate case, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see, among other authorities, the Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain judgment of 13 June 1994 (Article 50), Series A no. 285-C, pp.
  • EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

    McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 22947/93
    The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention "to secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see, mutatis mutandis, the McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 49, § 161, and the Kaya judgment cited above, p. 329, § 105).
  • EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 35810/09

    O'KEEFFE v. IRELAND

    L'article 3 exige donc des États qu'ils mettent en place effectivement des enquêtes approfondies, rapides et indépendantes, aptes à conduire à des poursuites en cas de violation de cette disposition par des agents de l'État ou des particuliers (Mikheïev c. Russie, no 77617/01, 26 janvier 2006, et Akkoç c. Turquie, nos 22947/93 et 22948/93, CEDH 2000-X).
  • EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 23145/93

    ELÇI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    22947/93 and 22948/93, §§ 37-40, ECHR 2000-X.
  • EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 36629/10

    SABA c. ITALIE

    Outre un élément de gravité, la torture implique une volonté délibérée, ainsi que le reconnaît la Convention des Nations unies contre la torture et autres peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants: en son article 1, celle-ci définit la torture comme tout acte par lequel une douleur ou des souffrances aigües sont intentionnellement infligées à une personne aux fins notamment d'obtenir d'elle des renseignements, de la punir ou de l'intimider (Akkoç c. Turquie, nos 22947/93 et 22948/93, § 115, CEDH 2000-X, et Gäfgen, précité, § 90).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht