Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AMINE GÜZEL v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Amine Güzel v. Turkey

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 41844/09

  While there may be obstacles or difficulties which prevent progress in an investigation in a particular situation, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating allegations of ill-treatment may also generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, among others, Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 136, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts), and Çelik and Ä°mret, cited above, § 55).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 41844/09

  Such an investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

  BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 41844/09

  While there may be obstacles or difficulties which prevent progress in an investigation in a particular situation, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating allegations of ill-treatment may also generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, among others, Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 136, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts), and Çelik and Ä°mret, cited above, § 55).

• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 59564/16

  AVCIOGLU c. TÜRKIYE

  Le requérant indique toutefois que son cas est plutôt comparable à l'affaire Amine Güzel c. Turquie (no 41844/09, §§ 40, 41 et 49, 17 septembre 2013).
• EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 54241/08

  CAMEKAN c. TURQUIE

  Par conséquent, la Cour considère qu'elle ne dispose d'aucune donnée convaincante susceptible de l'amener à s'écarter des constatations de fait opérées par les juges de la cour d'assises (comparer avec notamment, mutatis mutandis, Tarkan Yavas c. Turquie, no 58210/08, 18 septembre 2012, et également avec Amine Güzel c. Turquie, no 41844/09, 17 septembre 2013, voir aussi, entre plusieurs autres, Fırat Can c. Turquie, no 6644/08, 24 mai 2011).
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52577/15

  TODOROVIC v. CROATIA

  The compliance with the six-month rule in respect of that complaint is to be assessed separately (compare Amine Güzel v. Turkey, no. 41844/09, § 32, 17 September 2013).

 
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 68842/13

  SERBAN MARINESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Having regard to the foregoing, the Court concludes that the complaint under the substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention is premature and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see mutatis mutandis Collette and Michael Hemsworth v. the United Kingdom, no. 58559/09, § 67, 16 July 2013; McCaughey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 43098/09, § 129, 16 July 2013; and Amine Güzel v. Turkey, no. 41844/09, § 35, 17 September 2013).
• EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 57365/12

  ANTON c. ROUMANIE

  Il convient, dès lors, de joindre ladite exception au fond (Amine Güzel c. Turquie, no 41844/09, §§ 33 et 36, 17 septembre 2013).
• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 16585/08

  ÇORAMAN c. TURQUIE

  Pour la Cour, le temps écoulé entre la plainte initiale et l'ouverture d'une instruction ne saurait être compatible avec les exigences de promptitude posées par la jurisprudence relativement à l'article 3 de la Convention (a contrario, Çelik et Ä°mret c. Turquie, no 44093/98, §§ 54-60, 26 octobre 2004, et Amine Güzel c. Turquie, no 41844/09, §§ 42-43, 17 septembre 2013).