Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  I. BILGIN c. TURQUIE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 2 Violation de l'art. 5 Violation de l'art. 13 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  I. BILGIN v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 Violation of Art. 5 Violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 30.06.1997 - 25659/94
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 25659/94

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 25659/94

  In that connection, the Court notes both its own findings and those of the Commission as to the general unreliability and inaccuracy of custody records (see Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-IV, and Aydın v. Turkey, judgment of 25 September 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI, opinion of the Commission, p. 1941, § 172).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 25659/94

  The Court has previously held that where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured on 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 following judgments: Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11; Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93

  KILIÇ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 25659/94

  The Court notes in that connection that it has previously held that defects undermining the effectiveness of criminal-law protection in south-east Turkey during the period relevant also to this case permitted or fostered a lack of accountability of members of the security forces for their actions (see Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 75, ECHR 2000-III; Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 98, ECHR 2000-III; and Timurtas, cited above, § 85).

 
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 25659/94

  The Court notes in that connection that it has previously held that defects undermining the effectiveness of criminal-law protection in south-east Turkey during the period relevant also to this case permitted or fostered a lack of accountability of members of the security forces for their actions (see Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 75, ECHR 2000-III; Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 98, ECHR 2000-III; and Timurtas, cited above, § 85).
• EGMR, 09.05.2000 - 20764/92

  ERTAK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 25659/94

  Whether the failure on the part of the authorities to provide a plausible explanation as to a detainee's fate, in the absence of a body, might also raise issues under Article 2 of the Convention will depend on all the circumstances of the case, and in particular on the existence of sufficient circumstantial evidence, based on concrete elements, from which it may be concluded to the requisite standard of proof that the detainee must be presumed to have died in custody (see Çakıcı, cited above, § 85, and Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, § 131, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 25659/94

  Such an interpretation is in keeping with the effective protection of the right to life as afforded by Article 2, which ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention (see Çakıcı, cited above, § 86, and Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 82-83, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 25659/94

  The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to 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, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 49, § 161, and Kaya v. Turkey, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 329, § 105).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 25659/94

  The Court has previously held that where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured on 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 following judgments: Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11; Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 25659/94

  The Court has previously held that where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured on 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 following judgments: Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11; Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).

• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01

  TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Toutefois, le recours exigé par l'article 13 doit être « effectif ", en pratique comme en droit, en ce sens particulièrement que son exercice ne doit pas être entravé de manière injustifiée par les actes ou omissions des autorités de l'Etat défendeur (Ä°rfan Bilgin c. Turquie, no 25659/94, § 156, CEDH 2001-VIII, et les autres arrêts qui y sont cités).
• EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 21689/93

  AHMET ÖZKAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Although these incorrect entries may have been the result of the non-contemporaneous recording of entries at "a chaotic moment", as was suggested by the gendarme responsible, Ä°zettin Atar[165], the Court considers it doubtful, in the light of its findings in other cases about the general unreliability and inaccuracy of custody records (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 105, ECHR 2000-VI, Ä°rfan Bilgin v. Turkey, no. 25659/94, § 130, ECHR 2001-VIII, Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, §§ 137-138, 27 February 2001, Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, §§ 371-372, 18 June 2002, and Tepe v. Turkey, no. 27244/95, § 148, 9 May 2003) as well as the findings of the CPT in respect of the keeping of custody records in Turkey[166], that this can be regarded as a merely isolated incident.
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 33860/03

  BOZDEMIR AND YESILMEN v. TURKEY

  The Court notes in this connection that it has recorded deficiencies relating to entries in custody logbooks in previous cases (see Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, § 206, 6 April 2004; Tepe v. Turkey, no. 27244/95, § 148, 9 May 2003; Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 105, ECHR 2000-VI; Ä°rfan Bilgin v. Turkey, no. 25659/94, § 130, ECHR 2001-VIII; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-IV; Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, §§ 137-138, 27 February 2001; Orhan, cited above, § 313; and OsmanoÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, § 48, 24 January 2008).

 
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27601/95

  TOGCU v. TURKEY

  Having regard to the cases involving disappearances which it has been called upon to examine and which occurred in 1994, the Court concludes that that general context still pertained in that year (see, for instance, Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, 27 February 2001; Ä°rfan Bilgin v. Turkey, no. 25659/94, ECHR 2001-VIII; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002; Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.07.2004 - 28497/95

  O. c. TURQUIE

  Elle rappelle à cet égard que, pour l'appréciation de ces éléments, elle se rallie au principe de la preuve «au-delà de tout doute raisonnable», mais ajoute qu'une telle preuve peut résulter d'un faisceau d'indices ou de présomptions non réfutées, suffisamment graves, précis et concordants ; en outre, le comportement des parties lors de la recherche de preuves entre en ligne de compte dans ce contexte (voir, entre autres, Ä°rfan Bilgin c. Turquie, no 25659/94, § 122, CEDH 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 2747/02

  VACHKOVI v. BULGARIA

  In the Court's view, having regard to the principles enshrined in Article 2 of the Convention, discontinuing the investigation into the death of a person who had been in the hands of police officers at the time of the fatal injury, without identifying and questioning the police officers involved, cannot be justified in any circumstances (see Ä°rfan Bilgin v. Turkey, no. 25659/94, § 144, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, §§ 158 and 159, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 19353/03

  SAYGILI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Ces articles portent sur l'affaire Ä°rfan Bilgin c. Turquie (no 25659/94, CEDH 2001-VIII), dans laquelle la Cour a conclu, le 17 juillet 2001, à la violation des articles 2, 5 et 13 de la Convention en raison de la disparition en garde à vue de Kenan Bilgin.
• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 54169/00

  ENZILE ÖZDEMIR v. TURKEY

  In this connection, the Court recalls that it has previously found that, in certain circumstances, the disappearance, in south-east Turkey, of a person suspected by the authorities of PKK involvement could be considered life-threatening (see, for example, Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, ECHR 2000-VI, and Ä°rfan Bilgin v. Turkey, no. 25659/94, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 28299/95

  NESIBE HARAN v. TURKEY

  Having regard to the cases involving disappearances which it has been called upon to examine and which occurred in 1994, the Court concludes that the general context persisted in that year (see, for instance, Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, 27 February 2001; Ä°rfan Bilgin v. Turkey, no. 25659/94, ECHR 2001-VIII; Orhan, cited above; Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004-...).