Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AKSOY c. TURQUIE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 15, Art. 15 Abs. 1, Art. 15 Abs. 3, Art. 25, Art. 25 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 34 MRK
  Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) Violation de l'art. 3 Violation de l'art. 5-3 Violation de l'art. 13 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 6-1 Non-violation de l'art. 25-1 Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AKSOY v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 15, Art. 15 Abs. 1, Art. 15 Abs. 3, Art. 25, Art. 25 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 38, Art. 34 MRK
  Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 13 Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 25-1 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 19.10.1994 - 21987/93
• EKMR, 23.10.1995 - 21987/93
• EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 21987/93

Wird zitiert von ... (25)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 01.07.1961 - 332/57

  LAWLESS c. IRLANDE (N° 3)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 21987/93

  The Court considers, in the light of all the material before it, that the particular extent and impact of PKK terrorist activity in South-East Turkey has undoubtedly created, in the region concerned, a "public emergency threatening the life of the nation" (see, mutatis mutandis, the Lawless v. Ireland judgment of 1 July 1961, Series A no. 3, p. 56, para. 28, the above-mentioned Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment, p. 78, para. 205, and the above-mentioned Brannigan and McBride judgment, p. 50, para. 47).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 21987/93

  The Court, having decided to accept the Commission's findings of fact (see paragraphs 39-40 above), considers that where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation as to the causing of the injury, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (art. 3) (see the Tomasi v. France judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, paras. 108-111 and the Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, p. 26, para. 34).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 21987/93

  1 and 4 (P1, P4), Article 3 (art. 3) makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 (art. 15) even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see the Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, para. 163, the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 34, para. 88, and the Chahal v. the United Kingdom judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1855, para. 79).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 21987/93

  The Court, having decided to accept the Commission's findings of fact (see paragraphs 39-40 above), considers that where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation as to the causing of the injury, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (art. 3) (see the Tomasi v. France judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, paras. 108-111 and the Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, p. 26, para. 34).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 04.10.2018 - C-587/17

  Belgien / Kommission

  29 Vgl. insbesondere EGMR, Urteil vom 18. Dezember 1996, Aksoy/Türkei, CE:ECHR:1996:1218JUD002198793, §§ 52 und 53 sowie die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung.
• EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 23944/04

  EREMIASOVA AND PECHOVA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  The Court reiterates that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention requires that complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, but not that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (Aksoy v. Turkey, no. 21987/93, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1996-VI, and Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, no. 21893/93, §§ 65-67, ECHR 1996-IV).
• EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 42971/05

  PARRY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, but not that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (e.g. Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, no. 21893/93, §§ 65-67, ECHR 1996-IV; Aksoy v. Turkey, no. 21987/93, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1996-VI).

 
• EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 35748/05

  R. AND F. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, but not that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (e.g. Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, no. 21893/93, §§ 65-67, ECHR 1996-IV; Aksoy v. Turkey, no. 21987/93, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1996-VI).
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 40116/02

  SECIC v. CROATIA

  Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, but not that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey, no. 21987/93, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1996-VI, and Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, no. 21893/93, §§ 65-67, ECHR 1996-IV).
• EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 28867/03

  KEEGAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, but not that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (e.g. Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, no. 21893/93, §§ 65-67, ECHR 1996-IV; Aksoy v. Turkey, no. 21987/93, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1996-VI).
• EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 36536/02

  B and L v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, but not that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (e.g. Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, no. 21893/93, §§ 65-67, ECHR 1996-IV; Aksoy v. Turkey, no. 21987/93, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1996-VI).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 29178/95

  FINUCANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, but not that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey, no. 21987/93, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1996-VI, and Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, no. 21893/93, §§ 65-67, ECHR 1996-IV).
• EGMR, 12.12.2000 - 43290/98

  McSHANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, but not that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey, no. 21987/93, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1996-VI, and Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, no. 21893/93, §§ 65-67, ECHR 1996-IV).
• EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 37715/97

  SHANAGHAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, but not that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey, no. 21987/93, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1996-VI, and Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, no. 21893/93, §§ 65-67, ECHR 1996-IV).
• EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 28883/95

  McKERR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 24746/94

  HUGH JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 52256/15

  POLCAROVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 8374/03

  PEARSON v. the UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 30054/96

  KELLY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 06.03.2007 - 6239/06

  MC ILVANNY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 06.03.2007 - 6234/06

  KING v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 27.09.2005 - 12310/04

  ZYFLLI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2003 - 54268/00

  QUFAJ CO. SH.P.K. contre l'ALBANIE
• EKMR, 04.12.1995 - 24565/94

  K.O.S. v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 37538/05

  ZNAYKIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 56558/00

  OLAH v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 42735/02

  BARROW v. the UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 16.03.2004 - 37212/02

  WALKER v. UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 29800/04

  UPTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM