Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MENTESE AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 18, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) No violation of Art. 2 with regard to deaths Violation of Art. 2 with regard to lack of effective investigation No violation of Art. 3 and 8 with regard to deaths No violation of Art. 5 No ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.03.2004 - 36217/97
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 36217/97

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 36217/97

  The investigation must also be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in the circumstances (see, for example, Kaya, cited above, p. 324, § 87) and to the identification and punishment of those responsible (OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 88, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 36217/97

  There must also be a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition implicit in this context (see Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, pp. 2439-40, §§ 102-4, Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, §§ 80-7 and 106, ECHR 1999-IV, Tanrıkulu, cited above, § 109, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, §§ 106-7, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 36217/97

  The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia eye witness testimony, forensic evidence, and where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injuries and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death (see, concerning autopsies, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; concerning witnesses, for example, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 109, ECHR 1999-IV; concerning forensic evidence, for example, Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000).

 
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 36217/97

  There must also be a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition implicit in this context (see Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, pp. 2439-40, §§ 102-4, Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, §§ 80-7 and 106, ECHR 1999-IV, Tanrıkulu, cited above, § 109, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, §§ 106-7, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 36217/97

  The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia eye witness testimony, forensic evidence, and where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injuries and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death (see, concerning autopsies, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; concerning witnesses, for example, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 109, ECHR 1999-IV; concerning forensic evidence, for example, Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 36217/97

  They cannot leave it to the initiative of the next of kin either to lodge a formal complaint or to take responsibility for the conduct of any investigatory procedures (see, for example, mutatis mutandis, Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 14.12.2000 - 22676/93

  GÜL v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 36217/97

  The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia eye witness testimony, forensic evidence, and where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injuries and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death (see, concerning autopsies, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; concerning witnesses, for example, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 109, ECHR 1999-IV; concerning forensic evidence, for example, Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 36217/97

  However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating the use of lethal force may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their maintenance of the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, in general, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 108-15, ECHR 2001-III, and Avsar, cited above, §§ 390-95).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 36217/97

  Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, § 161, Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII, and Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, §§ 141-42, 16 July 2002).
• EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 27602/95

  ULKU EKINCI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 36217/97

  Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, § 161, Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII, and Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, §§ 141-42, 16 July 2002).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 15256/05

  TCHANKOTADZE v. GEORGIA

  Here are the judgments (in chronological order) in which this pattern has been employed: Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey (24 April 1998, Reports 1998-II) - violations of Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; Kurt v. Turkey (25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III) - violations of Articles 3, 5 and 13, as well as a finding "that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under [former] Article 25 § 1" (as it was worded at that time); Tekin v. Turkey (9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV) - violations of Articles 3 and 13; Ergi v. Turkey (28 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV) - violations of Articles 2 and 13 and (former) Article 25 § 1 (as it was worded at that time); Sener v. Turkey (no. 26680/95, 18 July 2000) - violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 10; Tanli v. Turkey (no. 26129/95, ECHR 2001-III) - violations of Articles 2 (both substantive and procedural) and 13; Tepe v. Turkey (no. 27244/95, 9 May 2003) - violations of Articles 2 (procedural) and 13; Yöyler v. Turkey (no. 26973/95, 24 July 2003) - violation of Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; Tekdag v. Turkey (no. 27699/95, 15 January 2004) - violations of Article 2 (procedural) and 13, as well as a finding that the respondent Government had "failed to fulfil their obligation under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention"; Ipek v. Turkey (no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004-II) - violations of Articles 2 (both substantive and procedural), 3, 5 and 13 (the latter in conjunction with Articles 2, 3 and 5) of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as well as a finding that the respondent Government had "failed to fulfil their obligation under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention"; Altun v. Turkey (no. 24561/94, 1 June 2004) - violations of Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; Sirin Yilmaz v. Turkey (no. 35875/97, 29 July 2004) - violations of Article 2 (procedural) and 13; Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey (no. 32446/96, 2 November 2004) - violations of Article 3, Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 and Article 13; Dicle v. Turkey (no. 34685/97, 10 November 2004) - violations of Article 10 and Article 6 § 1; Mentese and Others v. Turkey (no. 36217/97, 18 January 2005) - violations of Articles 2 (procedural) and 13; Agtas and Others v. Turkey (no. 33240/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Artun and Others v. Turkey (no. 33239/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Keser and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33238/96 and 32965/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Kumru Yilmaz and Others v. Turkey (no. 36211/97, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Nesibe Haran v. Turkey (no. 28299/95, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 2 (procedural); Öztoprak and Others v. Turkey (no. 33247/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Sayli v. Turkey (no. 33243/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Aksakal v. Turkey (no. 37850/97, §§ 43-44, 15 February 2007) - a violation of Article 13; Khodorkovskiy (cited above) - violations of Article 3 and Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4; OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos (cited above) - violations of Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev (cited above) - violations of Article 3, Article 5 §§ 3 and 4, Article 6 § 1 (in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) and (d)) and Article 8 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as well as a finding that the authorities had failed "to respect their obligation under Article 34 of the Convention".