Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AYSU v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Aysu v. Turkey

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  It marks out the temporal limits of supervision carried out by the organs of the Convention and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible (see, among other authorities, Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  Such proof may, however, follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch, cited above, § 34, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 10.01.2002 - 62566/00

  HAZAR, TEKTAS, BEKIROGLU, PEKOL, BOZKUS, TEKTAS, ATMAN, ISIK, AKSUCU, DOSTER, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  62566/00 and others, 10 January 2002) or from the date of knowledge of that act or its effect on or prejudice to the applicant (see Dennis and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76573/01, 2 July 2002).
• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  In such a situation, the six-month period might be calculated from the time when the applicant becomes aware, or should have become aware, of these circumstances (see Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 73065/01

  BULUT and YAVUZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  Furthermore, it ought to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being in a state of uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey, no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Içöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003; and Kenar v. Turkey (dec.), no. 67215/01, 1 December 2005).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 76573/01

  DENNIS AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  62566/00 and others, 10 January 2002) or from the date of knowledge of that act or its effect on or prejudice to the applicant (see Dennis and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76573/01, 2 July 2002).
• EGMR, 15.01.2004 - 54919/00

  ICOZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  Furthermore, it ought to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being in a state of uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey, no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Içöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003; and Kenar v. Turkey (dec.), no. 67215/01, 1 December 2005).
• EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 77845/01

  DERECI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in cases raising similar issues to those in the present application (see, for example, Atıcı v. Turkey, no. 19735/02, 10 May 2007; Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, ECHR 2007-II (extracts); Dereci v. Turkey, no. 77845/01, 24 May 2005; and TaciroÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 25324/02, 2 February 2006).
• EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 25324/02

  TACIROGLU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

  SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 19735/02

  ATICI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02

  KYRIACOU TSIAKKOURMAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  In the Court's opinion, his submissions, coupled with the injuries noted in the medical reports issued in the aftermath of his arrest, created an arguable claim that the first applicant might have been subjected to excessive use of force or ill-treatment during his arrest and had thus triggered the obligation to conduct an ex officio investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, Aksoy, cited above, § 98-99, ECHR 1996-VI; Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 112, ECHR 1999-IV; Özbey v. Turkey (dec.), no. 31883/96, 8 March 2001; Arat v. Turkey, no. 10309/03, § 43, 10 November 2009; and Aysu v. Turkey, no. 44021/07, § 40, 13 March 2012).