Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 43854/98 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,71624) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SOYLU v. TURKEY
Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 13, Art. 14+3, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 14+13, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
No violation of Art. 3 No violation of Art. 8 No violation of P1-1 No violation of Art. 13 No violation of Art. 14+3 No violation of Art. 14+8 No violation of Art. 14+13 No violation of Art. 14+P1-1 ...
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 43854/98
- EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 43854/98
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 25760/94
IPEK c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 43854/98
This being so, it should be pointed out that both the European Commission of Human Rights and the Court have previously embarked on fact finding missions in similar cases in Turkey where the State security forces were allegedly the perpetrators of the unlawful destruction of property (see, among many others, the above cited judgments of Akdivar and Others and Yöyler; and Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004-...). - EGMR, 12.01.2006 - 18888/02
IÇYER c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 43854/98
While the Court required a substantial number of applicants to avail themselves of the Compensation Law subsequent to its decision in the case of Aydın Ä°çyer v. Turkey (no. 18888/02, 12 January 2006), it points out that none of those cases had been declared admissible following dismissal of the Government's objection on non-exhaustion. - EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 43854/98
That said, the Court reiterates that, notwithstanding the terms of Article 13 read literally, the existence of an actual breach of another provision is not a prerequisite for the application of the Article (Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).