Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TAS v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 13, Art. 18, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 with regard to death of applicant's son Violation of Art. 2 with regard to failure to carry out effective investigation No violation of Art. 3 in respect of applicant's son Violation of Art. 3 in respect of applicant Violation of Art. 5-1 ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 05.03.1996 - 24396/94
• EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 24396/94

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 24396/94

  The Court has previously held that where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which an issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see the Tomasi v. France judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, §§ 108-111, Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 34, and Selmouni v. France judgment of 28 July 1999, to be published in ECHR 1999, § 87).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 24396/94

  The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention "to secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see, mutatis mutandis, the McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 49, § 161 and the Kaya v. Turkey judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, § 105).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 24396/94

  The Court has previously held that where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which an issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see the Tomasi v. France judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, §§ 108-111, Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 34, and Selmouni v. France judgment of 28 July 1999, to be published in ECHR 1999, § 87).

• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Thus also the Court, in a forward-looking decision, has held that the failure by the Government to submit information to which only it could have access, may give rise to inferences that the applicant's charges are well-founded [Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, 14 November 2000].
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 23502/06

  Bomben auf kurdische Dörfer: Türkei muss Schmerzensgeld zahlen

  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, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06

  ASLAKHANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Thus, the Court has dealt with a "pattern of enforced disappearances" occurring principally between 1992 and 1996 in South-Eastern Turkey (see, among others, OsmanoÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, 24 January 2008; Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, 31 May 2005; Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004-II (extracts); Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, 31 May 2001; Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, 14 November 2000; Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, ECHR 2000-VI; Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, ECHR 2000-V; and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, ECHR 1999-IV).

 
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 5310/71

  IRELAND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  [60] See, for example, Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, 14 November 2000, § 54; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002, §§ 266-275; Aydin v. Turkey, § 143; Trubnikov v. Russia, n° 49790/99, 5 July 2005, §§ 50-52 and 57; Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, n° 54825/00, ECHR 2005-II (extracts), §§ 76-77, where the respondent State had refused to provide "detailed information and to comment on the conditions of the applicant's detention in the isolation cell and his general conditions of detention, his medical treatment and the medical assistance provided to him".
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 23016/04

  ER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  In its examination of a number of those disappearances the Court reached the conclusion that the disappearance of a person in south-east Turkey at the relevant time could be regarded as life-threatening (see, among other authorities, OsmanoÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, 24 January 2008; Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, 31 May 2005; Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004-II (extracts); Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, 31 May 2001; Çiçek, cited above; Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, 14 November 2000; Timurtas, cited above; Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, ECHR 2000-V; and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03

  MERYEM ÇELIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court further noted that in its examination of a number of those disappearances, it had reached the conclusion that the disappearance of a person in south-east Turkey at the relevant time could be regarded as a life-threatening event (see, Er and Others, cited above, § 77, and the following cases cited therein: OsmanoÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, 24 January 2008; Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, 31 May 2005; Ä°pek, cited above; Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, 31 May 2001; Çiçek, cited above; Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, 14 November 2000; Timurtas, cited above; Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, ECHR 2000-V; and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94

  AKDENIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  It is especially in respect of the latter that a relative may claim directly to be a victim of the authorities" conduct (see Cakici v. Turkey [GC] no. 23657/94, §§ 98-99, ECHR 1999-IV, Timurtas v. Turkey, no 23531/94, §§ 95-98 ECHR 2000-VI, and Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94 (Sect. 1) (bil.), ECHR 2000-XI, §§ 79-80).