Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BENZER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case and friendly settlement proceedings Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Substantive ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BENZER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed;Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (4)

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
• dradio.de (Pressemeldung, 12.11.2013)

  Türkei muss wegen Bombardements kurdischer Dörfer Schmerzensgeld zahlen

• taz.de (Pressemeldung, 12.11.2013)

  Bomben auf kurdische Dörfer: Türkei muss Schmerzensgeld zahlen

• derstandard.at (Pressemeldung, 12.11.2013)

  Millionen-Schmerzensgeld wegen Bombardements kurdischer Dörfer

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 23502/06
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 23502/06

Papierfundstellen

• NVwZ 2014, 1646

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (20)

• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 23502/06

  It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to make all feasible reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore, as far as possible, the situation existing before the breach (Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 198, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 23016/04

  ER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 23502/06

  The Court reiterates that whilst a family member of a "disappeared person" may in certain circumstances claim to be a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention on account of their suffering (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 130-134, Reports 1998-III; see also, most recently, Er and Others v. Turkey, no. 23016/04, § 96, 31 July 2012), the same principle would not usually apply to situations where a person is killed by an agent of the State (see, for example, Tanlı v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 159, ECHR 2001-III (extracts)).
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 24604/04

  NIHAYET ARICI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 23502/06

  In a number of exceptional cases, where the very nature of the violation found was such as to leave no real choice between measures capable of remedying it, the Court has indicated the necessary measures in its judgments (see, inter alia, Abuyeva and Others, cited above, § 237, and the cases cited therein; Nihayet Arıcı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 24604/04 and 16855/05, §§ 173-176, 23 October 2012).

 
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 23502/06

  As the Court's judgments are essentially declaratory, the respondent State remains free, subject to the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment (Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 23502/06

  In order for a punishment or treatment associated with it to be "inhuman" or "degrading", the suffering or humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment (see V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 71, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 23502/06

  The question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a further factor to be taken into account, but the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 101, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 26129/95

  TANLI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 23502/06

  The Court reiterates that whilst a family member of a "disappeared person" may in certain circumstances claim to be a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention on account of their suffering (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 130-134, Reports 1998-III; see also, most recently, Er and Others v. Turkey, no. 23016/04, § 96, 31 July 2012), the same principle would not usually apply to situations where a person is killed by an agent of the State (see, for example, Tanlı v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 159, ECHR 2001-III (extracts)).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 23502/06

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01

  TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 23502/06

  In support of their submissions the applicants referred to a number of judgments in which the Court found violations of various Convention provisions on account of enforced disappearances, intentional destruction of villages and killings perpetrated by agents of the State in the Sırnak area, as well as on account of the failures to carry out effective investigations into those incidents (see Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, ECHR 2000-V; Ahmet Özkan and Others, cited above; Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, ECHR 2000-VI; Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, 14 November 2000; Dündar v. Turkey, no. 26972/95, 20 September 2005; Tanıs and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, ECHR 2005-VIII).
• EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 26972/95

  DÜNDAR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 23502/06

  In support of their submissions the applicants referred to a number of judgments in which the Court found violations of various Convention provisions on account of enforced disappearances, intentional destruction of villages and killings perpetrated by agents of the State in the Sırnak area, as well as on account of the failures to carry out effective investigations into those incidents (see Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, ECHR 2000-V; Ahmet Özkan and Others, cited above; Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, ECHR 2000-VI; Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, 14 November 2000; Dündar v. Turkey, no. 26972/95, 20 September 2005; Tanıs and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, ECHR 2005-VIII).
• EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 24396/94

  TAS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 26.05.2005 - 46231/99

  AYDIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 09.05.2000 - 20764/92

  ERTAK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.01.2002 - 62566/00

  HAZAR, TEKTAS, BEKIROGLU, PEKOL, BOZKUS, TEKTAS, ATMAN, ISIK, AKSUCU, DOSTER, …
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

• EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 54363/17

  NARAYAN AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Lastly, the statements given by the Azerbaijani witnesses, which included substantial identical elements (see paragraphs 23 and 26 above), were often mere assertions or assumptions of what could have occurred and did not cover the full scope of the allegations made as to the kidnapping of the soldier and the moving of bodies by the Armenian saboteur group; in any event, they cannot be considered sufficiently conclusive in the absence of any corroborative evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, Benzer and Others v. Turkey, no. 23502/06, § 168, 12 November 2013).