Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2013,6810
EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03 (https://dejure.org/2013,6810)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16.04.2013 - 3598/03 (https://dejure.org/2013,6810)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16. April 2013 - 3598/03 (https://dejure.org/2013,6810)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,6810) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

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

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

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).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht