Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TEREN AKSAKAL c. TURQUIE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Exception préliminaire (incompétence ratione temporis) retenue (volet matériel art. 2 et 3) Exception préliminaire (incompétence ratione temporis) rejetée (obligations positives art. 2 et 3) Exception préliminaire rejetée (délai de six mois) Violation des art. 2 et ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TEREN AKSAKAL v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection (ratione temporis) allowed (substantive aspect art. 2 and 3) Preliminary objection (ratione temporis) dismissed (positive obligations Preliminary objection dismissed (six month period) Violation of Art. 2 and 3 (procedural aspect) Not ...

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 51967/99

  The Court observes that, as formulated by the applicant, this part covers the period starting when the authorities were advised of the acts of torture and murder and ending when the proceedings in which they had the opportunity to correct the violations alleged against the State ended (see also Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V), on 30 January 2003, that is to say, long after the date on which Turkey recognised the right of individual petition.
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 51967/99

  The fact that the State's substantive and procedural obligations are autonomous in scope is not open to debate when examining the merits of these obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (for Article 2, see for example A.K. and V.K. v. Turkey, no. 38418/97, 30 November 2004, and Fatma Kaçar v. Turkey, no. 35838/97, 15 July 2005; for Article 3, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV; see also, for the case of a criminal conviction that the Court did not consider sufficient to deprive the applicant of his status as a victim as regards the procedural aspect of Article 3, Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, §§ 61, 89, 90, 26 January 2006).
• EGMR, 20.07.2000 - 33951/96

  CALOC v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 51967/99

  The Court cannot discern in the case file any facts capable of casting doubt on the domestic courts" findings (see, for example, Caloc v. France, no. 33951/96, § 97, ECHR 2000-IX).

 
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 51967/99

  There may be other circumstances which enable the Court to verify the arguable nature of a claim or the truth of the statements made under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (for the arguable nature, see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, and Labita, cited above; for a finding of the truth of the statements and violation notwithstanding the absence of a final decision of the national court, see Batı and others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§ 94, 114, 117, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 51967/99

  Referring to the cases of Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002) and Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III), in which the Court stressed that if no domestic remedies were available or if they were judged to be ineffective, the six-month time-limit ran from the date of the act complained of, the Government considered that in the instant case it had started on 12 November 1980.
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 73065/01

  BULUT and YAVUZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 51967/99

  Referring to the cases of Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002) and Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III), in which the Court stressed that if no domestic remedies were available or if they were judged to be ineffective, the six-month time-limit ran from the date of the act complained of, the Government considered that in the instant case it had started on 12 November 1980.
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

  BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 51967/99

  There may be other circumstances which enable the Court to verify the arguable nature of a claim or the truth of the statements made under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (for the arguable nature, see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, and Labita, cited above; for a finding of the truth of the statements and violation notwithstanding the absence of a final decision of the national court, see Batı and others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§ 94, 114, 117, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.07.2005 - 35838/97

  FATMA KAÇAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 51967/99

  The fact that the State's substantive and procedural obligations are autonomous in scope is not open to debate when examining the merits of these obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (for Article 2, see for example A.K. and V.K. v. Turkey, no. 38418/97, 30 November 2004, and Fatma Kaçar v. Turkey, no. 35838/97, 15 July 2005; for Article 3, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV; see also, for the case of a criminal conviction that the Court did not consider sufficient to deprive the applicant of his status as a victim as regards the procedural aspect of Article 3, Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, §§ 61, 89, 90, 26 January 2006).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 51967/99

  In so doing the Court must take into account both the facts of which the applicant complains and the scope of the Convention right alleged to have been violated, which may cause some difficulty where the complaints are based on events that are presented as the extension of a situation or chain of events, part of which occurred before the date of ratification or, as the case may be, the date of recognition by the respondent State of the individual right of petition, when this was still merely optional (compare, for example, Blecic, cited above, §§ 77 and 82; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 402, 403, 459, 462 and 463, ECHR 2004-VII; YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 40, Series A no. 319-A; and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 122, ECHR 2004-V).
• EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  MIKHEYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 51967/99

  The fact that the State's substantive and procedural obligations are autonomous in scope is not open to debate when examining the merits of these obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (for Article 2, see for example A.K. and V.K. v. Turkey, no. 38418/97, 30 November 2004, and Fatma Kaçar v. Turkey, no. 35838/97, 15 July 2005; for Article 3, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV; see also, for the case of a criminal conviction that the Court did not consider sufficient to deprive the applicant of his status as a victim as regards the procedural aspect of Article 3, Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, §§ 61, 89, 90, 26 January 2006).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

• EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 25018/10

  IBRAHIM DEMIRTAS c. TURQUIE

  Nous sommes conscients du fait que, dans le cadre de l'article 2, des violations ont été constatées lorsque la procédure pénale s'était indûment prolongée (Opuz c. Turquie, no 33401/02, § 151, CEDH 2009, une affaire dans laquelle la procédure pénale en cause durait depuis plus de six ans et était toujours pendante au moment où la Cour a rendu son arrêt) ou s'était éteinte par la prescription, permettant ainsi aux auteurs présumés de l'infraction d'échapper à toute responsabilité (voir, mutatis mutandis, Teren Aksakal c. Turquie, no 51967/99, § 88, 11 septembre 2007).
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07

  MUCIBABIC v. SERBIA

  Violations have also been found where the trial had continued unduly (see Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 151, ECHR 2009, a case where the criminal proceedings at issue had lasted for more than six years and were still pending) or had ended by prescription allowing the accused perpetrators to escape accountability (see, mutatis mutandis, Teren Aksakal v. Turkey, no. 51967/99, § 88, 11 September 2007).
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 57856/11

  JELIC v. CROATIA

  The Court has previously considered cases in which some investigation into the deaths in question, as well as relevant court proceedings seeking redress, took place both before and after the critical date (see, for example, Silih, cited above; Teren Aksakal v. Turkey, no. 51967/99, ECHR 2007-X (extracts); Agache and Others v. Romania, no. 2712/02, 20 October 2009; Velcea and Mazare, cited above; Sandru and Others v. Romania, no. 22465/03, 8 December 2009; and Tuna v. Turkey, no. 22339/03, 19 January 2010).

 
• EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 16064/90

  VARNAVA ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  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, 22.05.2012 - 1099/08

  MLADENOVIC v. SERBIA

  Violations have also been found where the trial had continued unduly (see Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 151, ECHR 2009, a case where the criminal proceedings at issue had lasted for more than six years and were still pending) or had ended by prescription allowing the accused perpetrators to escape accountability (see, mutatis mutandis, Teren Aksakal v. Turkey, no. 51967/99, § 88, 11 September 2007).
• EGMR, 28.04.2020 - 44938/12

  BAL c. TURQUIE

  De plus, aucun responsable du commandement de l'état de siège de Kahramanmara?Ÿ n'a été mis en accusation relativement aux actes allégués pendant que le requérant était en garde à vue (comparer avec Teren Aksakal c. Turquie, no 51967/99, §§ 61 et 62, 11 septembre 2007, Tuna c. Turquie, no 22339/03, § 77, 19 janvier 2010, et Paçaci et autres, précité, § 61: dans ces affaires l'enquête avait été conduite en partie avant la date critique et en partie après cette date).
• EGMR, 28.04.2020 - 56840/10

  ÇELIK c. TURQUIE

  Ainsi, la majeure partie de l'enquête pénale concernant les allégations de la requérante a été conduite avant la date critique (comparer avec Teren Aksakal c. Turquie, no 51967/99, §§ 61 et 62, 11 septembre 2007, Tuna c. Turquie, no 22339/03, § 77, 19 janvier 2010, et Paçaci et autres, précité, § 61: dans ces affaires l'enquête avait été conduite en partie avant la date critique et en partie après cette date).
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 3064/07

  PAÇACI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Eu égard à la manière dont les requérants présentent leurs griefs, la Cour estime opportun d'examiner ceux-ci uniquement sous l'angle de l'article 2 de la Convention (Teren Aksakal c. Turquie, no 51967/99, § 57, CEDH 2007-X, Balcı c. Turquie, no 31079/02, § 26, 17 février 2009, et Seyfettin Acar et autres c. Turquie, no 30742/03, § 21, 6 octobre 2009).
• EGMR, 29.06.2010 - 14102/02

  BEKAOURI c. GEORGIE

  Le fait allégué de mauvais traitement se situant ainsi avant la date critique, ce grief est incompatible ratione temporis avec les dispositions de la Convention (Teren Aksakal c. Turquie, no 51967/99, § 66, CEDH 2007-X (extraits) ; Tuna c. Turquie (déc.), no 22339/03, 2 octobre 2007).
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 22339/03

  TUNA c. TURQUIE

  En conséquence, en ce qui concerne les requêtes dirigées contre l'Etat défendeur, la Cour n'a pas compétence pour connaître des griefs qui comportent des allégations de violation fondées sur des faits survenus avant la date critique susmentionnée (Teren Aksakal c. Turquie, no 51967/99, §§ 61-62, CEDH 2007-X (extraits)).
• EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 9207/03

  EVRIM ÖKTEM c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.04.2020 - 44562/15

  ÖZDEMIR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 62726/10

  MRDENOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 19506/05

  EBCIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 20106/06

  MARTA JULARIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 40177/11

  ERDAL c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 22932/02

  ISMAIL ALTUN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 7864/06

  CAKIR v. CYPRUS