Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ERCANKAN v. TURKEY

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ERCANKAN c. TURQUIE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  [FRE]

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

• EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 15339/02

  BUDAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 44312/12

  The basic principles concerning a State's positive obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2, including against non-intentional infringements of that right, were set out by the Grand Chamber in the case of Öneryildiz v. Turkey ([GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 89-96, ECHR 2004-XII), and were subsequently detailed in many cases that followed (see, for instance, Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02 and 4 others, §§ 128-145, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Ciechonska v. Poland, no. 19776/04, §§ 59-79, 14 June 2011; and Mehmet Sentürk and Bekir Sentürk v. Turkey, no. 13423/09, §§ 79-106, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 13423/09

  MEHMET SENTÜRK ET BEKIR SENTÜRK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 44312/12

  The basic principles concerning a State's positive obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2, including against non-intentional infringements of that right, were set out by the Grand Chamber in the case of Öneryildiz v. Turkey ([GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 89-96, ECHR 2004-XII), and were subsequently detailed in many cases that followed (see, for instance, Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02 and 4 others, §§ 128-145, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Ciechonska v. Poland, no. 19776/04, §§ 59-79, 14 June 2011; and Mehmet Sentürk and Bekir Sentürk v. Turkey, no. 13423/09, §§ 79-106, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 30015/96

  A.A. ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 44312/12

  For a positive obligation to arise, it must be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual and, if so, that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see, amongst other authorities, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, §§ 89-92, ECHR 2001-III; A. and Others v. Turkey, no. 30015/96, §§ 44-45, 27 July 2004; and Ilbeyi Kemaloglu and Meriye Kemaloglu, cited above, § 36).

• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 69829/11

  VERONICA CIOBANU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  La Cour a déjà eu l'occasion d'affirmer que, pour ce qui est des établissements scolaires, le degré de diligence requis pour protéger les enfants des dangers doit nécessairement s'ajuster au fur et à mesure qu'ils grandissent et arrivent à l'adolescence, et qu'ils commencent à assumer des responsabilités en lien avec leurs capacités en évolution (Ercankan c. Turquie (déc.), no 44312/12, § 51, 15 mai 2018).