Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GASYAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award Dommage matériel - claim dismissed (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 27872/03

  Referring in particular to the decision in the case of Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III), the Government submitted that the applicants, who claim that the investigation was ineffective, should have introduced their application within a reasonable time after the bodies of their relatives had been found in April 1994.

  The Court noted that it had held in the case of Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III), referred to by the Government, and in a number of other similar cases that, if no domestic remedies were available or if they were judged to be ineffective, the six-month time-limit in principle ran from the date of the act complained of.

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 27872/03

  It could not therefore be regarded as an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 79, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 27872/03

  In that connection, the Court points out that this obligation is not confined to cases where it is apparent that the killing was caused by an agent of the State (see Salman v. Turkey ([GC], no. 21986/93, § 105, ECHR 2000-VII).

• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 57856/11

  JELIC v. CROATIA

  While it is uncertain whether any of the information given to the prosecuting authorities and the police would have resulted in convictions, it is nevertheless expected of national authorities that they pursue all possible leads to establish the circumstances in which a person has been killed, in order to comply with their procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Gasyak and Others v. Turkey, no. 27872/03, § 60, 13 October 2009; Mizigárová v. Slovakia, no. 74832/01, § 93, 14 December 2010; and Dobriyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 18407/10, § 69, 19 December 2013).
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 21099/06

  YETISEN c. TURQUIE

  Au contraire, à partir de 1996, Ahmet a été recherché par le procureur de la République comme membre du PKK et non pas comme une personne supposée disparue, après avoir été placée en garde à vue (voir, a contrario, Gasyak et autres c. Turquie, no 27872/03, §§ 60-64, 13 octobre 2009 et les références qui y sont mentionnées).
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52577/15

  TODOROVIC v. CROATIA

  As to the steps taken after 24 September 2015, the Court reiterates that where information purportedly casting new light on the circumstances of a death comes into the public domain, a new obligation to investigate the death may arise (see Hackett v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34698/04, 10 May 2005; Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, no. 32457/04, §§ 66-67, 27 November 2007; Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009; Gasyak and Others v. Turkey, no. 27872/03, § 60, 13 October 2009; and Harrison and Others, cited above, § 51).

 
• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 40485/08

  PETROVIC v. SERBIA

  Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the applicant diligently pursued this avenue of redress and, likewise, she then made a rational decision not to file any further indictment in view of her previous unsuccessful request for an investigation (see paragraphs 38 and 49 above), which required a much lower standard of proof (contrast to Gasyak and Others v. Turkey, no. 27872/03, § 58, 13 October 2009).
• EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 44814/07

  KADRI BUDAK c. TURQUIE

  C'est pourquoi il appartient à la Cour à présent d'examiner les différentes mesures prises ou les actes ordonnés par les autorités internes pour connaître des allégations du requérant tirées de l'article 2 de la Convention sous son volet procédural pour autant qu'elles concernent les éléments de fait postérieurs au 1er mai 2005, date de la découverte des ossements appartenant aux proches du requérant (Gasyak et autres c. Turquie, no 27872/03, §§ 60 et 63, 13 octobre 2009, et, mutatis mutandis, Silih c. Slovénie [GC], no 71463/01, §§ 161-163, 9 avril 2009).
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 24604/04

  NIHAYET ARICI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  En revanche, s'agissant d'un grief tiré de l'article 2 de la Convention, la Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà examiné et rejeté une exception d'irrecevabilité tirée du non-épuisement des voies de recours internes au motif qu'un requérant n'avait pas saisi les autorités nationales compétentes d'une demande d'indemnisation conformément à la loi no 5233 (Gasyak et autres c. Turquie, no 27872/03, §§ 66-72, 13 octobre 2009 et Fadime et Turan Karabulut c. Turquie, no 23872/04, § 38, 27 mai 2010).
• EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 12938/07

  CERF v. TURKEY

  In light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the information submitted to the authorities in January 2000 led to significant new developments and that therefore the procedural obligation to investigate the killing of the applicant's husband was revived after that date (see Gasyak and Others v. Turkey, no. 27872/03, §§ 60-63, 13 October 2009; see also Saygi v. Turkey, no. 37715/11, § 50, 27 January 2015).
• EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 11182/10

  DAVITASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  In this connection, the Court emphasises that the fact that the authorities opened a criminal investigation into the alleged abduction and beating of the applicant does not relieve the applicant of his own obligation to undertake elementary steps and seek information from the relevant authorities about the investigation's progress or the lack thereof (see Akhvlediani and Others, cited above, § 26; Manukyan v. Georgia (dec.), no. 53073/07, § 30, 9 October 2012; Deari and Others v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (dec.), no. 54415/09, 6 March 2012; Bayram and Yildirim v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002 III; and Gasyak and Others v. Turkey, no. 27872/03, § 58, 13 October 2009).