Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 12647/11 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,60090) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
UYAR v. TURKEY
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (7)
- EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 47936/11
ÇALiSKAN c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 12647/11
In the absence of any arbitrariness or manifest unreasonableness in the interpretation or application of the domestic laws in question, and having regard to the reasons provided by the relevant judicial authorities in rejecting the applicants" claims, the applicants have failed to substantiate that any of the procedural guarantees contained in Article 6 were breached in relation to the present complaints (see, mutatis mutandis, Çaliskan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 47936/11, 1 December 2015). - EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 21166/02
- EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00
Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 12647/11
In relation to the first question, the Court has held that if the infringement of the right to life or to physical integrity is not caused intentionally, the positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention do not necessarily require criminal proceedings to be brought in every case, and may be satisfied if civil, administrative or even disciplinary remedies were available to the victims (see, for instance, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII; and Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos.
- EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 15339/02
BUDAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 12647/11
15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, § 139, ECHR 2008 (extracts)). - EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 4864/05
OYAL v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 12647/11
While an effective judicial system, as required by Article 2, may, and under certain circumstances must, include recourse to the criminal law, the Court has already noted above (paragraph 70) and elsewhere on a number of occasions that the positive obligation imposed by Article 2 to set up an effective judicial system does not necessarily require the provision of a criminal law remedy in every case if the infringement of the right to life or to physical integrity is not caused intentionally, such as in the instant case (see, for instance Vo, cited above, and Oyal v. Turkey, no. 4864/05, §§ 67-68, 23 March 2010). - EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96
CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 12647/11
In relation to the first question, the Court has held that if the infringement of the right to life or to physical integrity is not caused intentionally, the positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention do not necessarily require criminal proceedings to be brought in every case, and may be satisfied if civil, administrative or even disciplinary remedies were available to the victims (see, for instance, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII; and Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99
PEREZ c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 12647/11
The Court wishes to stress that to the extent that the applicants complained of the inadequacy of the criminal proceedings to effectively punish the responsible State agents, Article 2 does not entail the right for an applicant to have third parties prosecuted or sentenced for a criminal offence (see, mutatis mutandis, Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004-I, and Öneryildiz, cited above, § 96).