Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ATESOGLU v. TURKEY

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ATESOGLU v. TURKEY

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Atesoglu v. Turkey

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ATESOGLU v. TURKEY

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 53645/10

  As to the seriousness of the treatment in question, the Court reiterates that, under its case-law in this sphere (see, among other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 96-97, ECHR 1999-V), in order to determine whether a particular form of ill-treatment should be qualified as torture, it must have regard to the distinction, embodied in Article 3, between this notion and that of inhuman or degrading treatment.
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 53645/10

  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, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 53645/10

  In these circumstances, the Court finds that the acts complained of were particularly serious, cruel, and capable of causing severe pain and suffering (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §§ 114 and 115, ECHR 2000-VII; Valeriu and Nicolae Rosca v. Moldova, no. 41704/02, § 64, 20 October 2009 and further references therein; Diri v. Turkey, no. 68351/01, §§ 42-46, 31 July 2007; and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, §§ 68 and 69, 1 January 2007).

 
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 53645/10

  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 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 Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 136, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

  BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 53645/10

  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 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 Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 136, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99

  OKKALI c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 53645/10

  This is essential for maintaining the public's confidence in, and support for, the rule of law and for preventing any appearance of the authorities" tolerance of or collusion in unlawful acts (see Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 65, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts), and Derman, cited above, § 27).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 34445/04

  MAMMADOV (JALALOGLU) v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 53645/10

  In these circumstances, the Court finds that the acts complained of were particularly serious, cruel, and capable of causing severe pain and suffering (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §§ 114 and 115, ECHR 2000-VII; Valeriu and Nicolae Rosca v. Moldova, no. 41704/02, § 64, 20 October 2009 and further references therein; Diri v. Turkey, no. 68351/01, §§ 42-46, 31 July 2007; and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, §§ 68 and 69, 1 January 2007).
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 68351/01

  DIRI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 53645/10

  In these circumstances, the Court finds that the acts complained of were particularly serious, cruel, and capable of causing severe pain and suffering (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §§ 114 and 115, ECHR 2000-VII; Valeriu and Nicolae Rosca v. Moldova, no. 41704/02, § 64, 20 October 2009 and further references therein; Diri v. Turkey, no. 68351/01, §§ 42-46, 31 July 2007; and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, §§ 68 and 69, 1 January 2007).
• EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 41704/02

  VALERIU AND NICOLAE ROSCA v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 53645/10

  In these circumstances, the Court finds that the acts complained of were particularly serious, cruel, and capable of causing severe pain and suffering (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §§ 114 and 115, ECHR 2000-VII; Valeriu and Nicolae Rosca v. Moldova, no. 41704/02, § 64, 20 October 2009 and further references therein; Diri v. Turkey, no. 68351/01, §§ 42-46, 31 July 2007; and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, §§ 68 and 69, 1 January 2007).
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 21789/02

  DERMAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 53645/10

  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 Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 93, ECHR 2010; Derman v. Turkey, no. 21789/02, § 25, 31 May 2011; and Eski v. Turkey, no. 8354/04, § 28, 5 June 2012).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 8354/04

  ESKI v. TURKEY

• EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 37882/13

  E.G. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  La Cour estime donc que, dans le cas de V.B., les juges de la cour d'appel ont exercé leur discrétion afin de minimiser les conséquences d'un acte illégal extrêmement sérieux plutôt que de montrer que de tels actes ne sauraient en aucune manière être tolérés (comparer avec Atesoglu c. Turquie, no 53645/10, § 28 in fine, 20 janvier 2015 et les affaires qui y sont citées).
• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 73346/11

  ÖZÇELIK c. TURQUIE

  La Cour a de maintes fois jugé que la procédure régie par l'article 231 du CPP permettant de surcroît de surseoir au prononcé de jugements concernant des agents de l'État entraîne l'impunité de ces derniers (voir, par exemple, Eski c. Turquie, no 8354/04, § 36, 5 juin 2012, Taylan c. Turquie, no 32051/09, § 46, 3 juillet 2012, Böber c. Turquie, no 62590/09, § 35, 9 avril 2013, Külah et Koyuncu c. Turquie, no 24827/05, § 42, 23 avril 2013, Kasap et autres, précité, § 60, Atesoglu c. Turquie, no 53645/10, § 28, 20 janvier 2015, et Hasan Köse, précité, § 37).
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  SHESTOPALOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has on numerous occasions affirmed that the finding of a violation is not sufficient to constitute just satisfaction in cases of ill-treatment suffered by individuals at the hands of the police or other agents of the State (see, among recent authorities in which a violation of Article 3 was found on account of torture, Al Nashiri v. Poland, no. 28761/11, § 594, 24 July 2014; Atesoglu v. Turkey, no. 53645/10, § 35, 20 January 2015; Afet Süreyya Eren v. Turkey, no. 36617/07, § 51, 20 October 2015; Zakharin and Others v. Russia, no. 22458/04, § 94, 12 November 2015; and Pomilyayko v. Ukraine, no. 60426/11, § 62, 11 February 2016).
• EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 47936/11

  ÇALiSKAN c. TURQUIE

  La Cour rappelle avoir déjà examiné la question du sursis au prononcé du jugement dans le cadre d'affaires relatives à des mauvais traitements infligés par les forces de l'ordre (Eski c. Turquie, no 8354/04, 5 juin 2012, Taylan c. Turquie, no 32051/09, 3 juillet 2012, Böber c. Turquie, no 62590/09, 9 avril 2013, et, plus récemment, Atesoglu c. Turquie, no 53645/10, 20 janvier 2015).
• EGMR - 54328/20 (anhängig)

  ÖLMEZ c. TÜRKIYE

  En particulier, l'application de la législation pénale nationale à l'égard du fonctionnaire de police H.A., à savoir le sursis au prononcé du jugement (« hükmün açiklanmasinin geri birakilmasi "), a-t-elle l'effet dissuasif nécessaire pour empêcher à l'avenir d'autres actes similaires contraires à l'article 3 de la Convention (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Taylan c. Turquie, no 32051/09, § 46, 3 juillet 2012, et Atesoglu c. Turquie, no 53645/10, § 28, 20 janvier 2015) ?.