Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YILDIRIM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) No violation of Art. 2 Violation of Art. 2 No violation of Art. 3 Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Not necessary to examine Art. 14 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 56154/00
• EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 56154/00

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 56154/00

  The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).

  However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating a use of lethal force or a disappearance 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, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 56154/00

  The mere fact that the authorities were informed of the killing of the applicant's brother gave rise ipso facto to an obligation under Article 2 to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, §§ 101 and 103, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 56154/00

  There is also a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition implicit in this context (Yasa, cited above, §§ 102-04, Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, §§ 80, 87 and 106, ECHR 1999-IV, Tanrıkulu, cited above, § 109, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2000-III).

 
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 56154/00

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 32, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 283, ECHR 2001-VII) even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place.
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 56154/00

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 32, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 283, ECHR 2001-VII) even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place.
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 56154/00

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings also requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, pp. 45-46, §§ 146-47).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 56154/00

  Where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and as a general rule it is for those courts to assess the evidence before them (see Klaas v. Germany, judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, p. 17, § 29).

• EGMR, 23.07.2020 - 40503/17

  M.K. AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  43370/04 and 2 others, § 166, ECHR 2012 (extracts), where the Court awarded non-pecuniary damages to each individual victim of a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (identified by name in an annex to the judgment) despite or irrespective of the fact that they happened to be members of the same family and/or their complaint was registered by the Court under a single application number; but contrast Selim Yildirim and Others v. Turkey, no. 56154/00, § 94, 19 October 2006, in which, in the context of a finding of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, a single joint award was made to close relatives in respect of the persons presumed disappeared.
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 7678/09

  VAN COLLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court recalls that, while it is not its task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts, where allegations are made under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000; Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 283, ECHR 2001-VII; and Selim Yıldırım and Others v. Turkey, no. 56154/00, § 59, 19 October 2006).
• EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 75535/01

  ESAT BAYRAM v. TURKEY

  Though the Court is not bound by the findings of domestic courts, in normal circumstances it requires cogent elements to lead it to depart from the findings of fact reached by those courts (see Selim Yıldırım and Others v. Turkey, no. 56154/00, § 59, 19 October 2006).