Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KASAP AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Kasap and Others v. Turkey

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KASAP AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 42942/02

  ALI AND AYSE DURAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 8656/10

  In order to examine whether that obligation has been satisfied, it is for the Court to review whether and to what extent the national courts, in reaching their conclusions, may be deemed to have submitted the case to the careful scrutiny required by Article 2 of the Convention, so that the deterrent effect of the judicial system that is in place and the significance of the role it is required to play in preventing violations of the right to life are not undermined (see Ali and Ayse Duran v. Turkey, no. 42942/02, § 62, 8 April 2008).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 8656/10

  The Court reiterates that the State's positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to protect life by law requires the domestic legal system to demonstrate its capacity to enforce the criminal law against those who have unlawfully taken the life of another (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 160, ECHR 2005-VII).

• EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 63543/09

  DURDAJ AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  As regards the sentencing, the Court has previously found a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention in cases where State officials had caused death by acts of police brutality and where the execution of sentences imposed on them had been suspended (see Ali and Ay?Ÿe Duran, cited above, §§ 70-72; Bekta?Ÿ and Özalp, cited above, § 50; Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, § 47, 27 May 2010; and Külah and Koyuncu v. Turkey, no. 24827/05, § 60, 23 April 2013); or the sentence was enforced with a significant delay (see Kitanovska Stanojkovic and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 2319/14, §§ 31-33, 13 October 2016); or they were not punished owing to the punishment becoming time-barred (see Przemyk v. Poland, no. 22426/11, § 71, 17 September 2013, and Nina Kutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 25114/11, § 150, 18 July 2017); or the sentence was too lenient (see Przemyk, cited above, § 72, where a police officer was initially sentenced to four years' imprisonment for charges of battery resulting in death, and then the sentence was reduced to two years' imprisonment, and Yeter v. Turkey, no. 33750/03, § 68, 13 January 2009, where a police officer was initially sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for charges of torture resulting in death, and then the sentence was reduced to four years and two months' imprisonment and he served only nineteen days of it); or where the police officers who committed murder were not banned from public service (see Vazagashvili and Shanava, cited above, § 92, where two police officers convicted for aggravated murder of the applicant's son were sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment but could potentially join the law-enforcement system of the respondent State anew after they have served their prison sentences); or where the trial court suspended the pronouncement of the judgment for the offence of unlawful killing on the ground that it had not been intentional (see, for example, Kasap and Others v. Turkey, no. 8656/10, § 60, 14 January 2014, and Hasan Köse v. Turkey, no. 15014/11, § 37, 18 December 2018).
• EGMR, 28.04.2015 - 54999/10

  MILIC ET NIKEZIC c. MONTÉNÉGRO

  Thus, in cases where the execution of the perpetrators" prison sentences was suspended (see Okkali v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 39, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, § 30, 27 May 2010; Nikolova and Velichkova, cited above, § 24, and Külah and Koyuncu v. Turkey, no. 24827/05, § 18, 23 April 2013); where the criminal trial became time-barred on account of the expiry of the statute of limitations after it had been established that the defendants had carried out the acts (Ugur v. Turkey, no. 37308/05, § 70, 13 January 2015); or where pronouncement of the judgment was suspended (Eski v. Turkey, no. 8354/04, § 18, 5 June 2012 and Kasap and Others v. Turkey, no. 8656/10, § 37, 14 January 2014), the Court has found substantive violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention on account of the impunity granted to those perpetrators.
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 15980/12

  MASLOVA c. RUSSIE

  Il lui reste à déterminer si les autorités nationales ont fourni une réparation appropriée et suffisante pour la violation des articles 2 et 3 et si elles se sont conformées à leurs obligations matérielles et procédurales découlant des articles susmentionnés (voir, mutatis mutandis, Kasap et autres c. Turquie, no 8656/10, § 56, 14 janvier 2014).
• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 73346/11

  ÖZÇELIK c. TURQUIE

  Il n'est donc pas nécessaire de déterminer si la force meurtrière utilisée par V.K. était absolument nécessaire, proportionnée et, par conséquent, justifiée au sens de l'article 2 § 2. L'examen se limitera donc à vérifier si les autorités nationales ont accordé ou non une réparation appropriée et suffisante pour la violation et si elles ont ainsi respecté leurs obligations matérielles et procédurales en vertu de cette disposition (Külah et Koyuncu c. Turquie, no 24827/05, § 38, 23 avril 2013, Kasap et autres c. Turquie, no 8656/10, § 56, 14 janvier 2014, et Hasan Köse, précité, § 33, ainsi que les autres exemples qui y sont cités).
• EGMR - 57385/22 (anhängig)

  KORKMAZ c. TÜRKIYE

  La façon dont le système de justice pénale turc a répondu au décès de Ali Ismail Korkmaz a-t-elle permis d'établir la pleine responsabilité des agents ou autorités de l'État pour leur rôle dans cette tragédie, et de garantir la mise en ?“uvre effective des dispositions du droit interne assurant le respect du droit à la vie, en particulier la fonction dissuasive du droit pénal (Nikolova et Velitchkova c. Bulgarie, no 7888/03, § 61, 20 décembre 2007, Külah et Koyuncu c. Turquie, no 24827/05, § 42, 23 avril 2013, et Kasap et autres c. Turquie, no 8656/10, § 59, 14 janvier 2014) ?.