Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MERYEM ÇELIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Six month period) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural ...
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03
- EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 3598/03
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (24)
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03
The Court reiterates that the national authorities are responsible for the well-being of persons in custody and that respondent States bear the burden of providing a plausible explanation for any injuries, deaths and disappearances which occur in custody (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII; Tanıs and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005-VIII; and Er and Others, cited above, § 66).This obligation is not confined to cases where it has been established that the killing was caused by an agent of the State (seeMcCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 161, Series A no. 324 and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 105, ECHR 2000-VII).
- EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97
BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03
Relying on the Court's decisions in the cases of Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III); Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002); and Hazar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), nos.Furthermore, it ought also to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being under any uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (see Bulut and Yavuz (dec.), cited above and Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III).
- EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93
AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03
It concludes therefore that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the applicants" remaining complaints under the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, § 132, 22 July 2008; Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 271, ECHR 2005-II); and Güveç v. Turkey, no. 70337/01, § 135, ECHR 2009).
- EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 70337/01
GÜVEÇ c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03
It concludes therefore that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the applicants" remaining complaints under the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, § 132, 22 July 2008; Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 271, ECHR 2005-II); and Güveç v. Turkey, no. 70337/01, § 135, ECHR 2009). - EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 37410/97
KAMIL UZUN c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03
It concludes therefore that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the applicants" remaining complaints under the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, § 132, 22 July 2008; Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 271, ECHR 2005-II); and Güveç v. Turkey, no. 70337/01, § 135, ECHR 2009). - EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 10301/03
GETIREN v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03
It concludes therefore that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the applicants" remaining complaints under the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, § 132, 22 July 2008; Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 271, ECHR 2005-II); and Güveç v. Turkey, no. 70337/01, § 135, ECHR 2009). - EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83
BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03
As regards the remaining applicants" claim for pecuniary damage, the Court's case-law has established that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention and that this may, in appropriate cases, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see, among other authorities, Er and Others, cited above, § 118; Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (Article 50), 13 June 1994, §§ 16-20, Series A no. 285-C; and Çakıcı, cited above, § 127). - EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94
ÇAKICI v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03
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, 17.02.2004 - 25760/94
IPEK c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03
The relevant domestic law and practice applicable at the material time can be found in the judgment of Ä°pek v. Turkey (no. 25760/94, §§ 92-106, ECHR 2004-II). - EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 24396/94
TAS v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03
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, 24.01.2008 - 48804/99
OSMANOGLU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 23016/04
ER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 09.05.2000 - 20764/92
ERTAK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94
AVSAR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94
AKDENIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 21099/06
YETISEN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 52392/99
UÇAR v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 73065/01
BULUT and YAVUZ v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
- EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 25165/94
AKDENIZ v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 10.01.2002 - 62566/00
HAZAR, TEKTAS, BEKIROGLU, PEKOL, BOZKUS, TEKTAS, ATMAN, ISIK, AKSUCU, DOSTER, …
- EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94
TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01
TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 72080/12
SHAVADZE v. GEORGIA
The Court has previously emphasised that where an individual is taken into custody in good health and dies at the hands of the security forces, the obligation on the authorities to account for the treatment of that individual is particularly stringent (see Meryem Çelik and Others v. Turkey, no. 3598/03, § 61, 16 April 2013).