Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DÜNDAR v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14+2, Art. 14, Art. 14+3, Art. 14+6 Abs. 1, Art. 14+13, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Art. 2 (death of applicant's son) Violation of Art. 2 (inadequate investigation) No Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 13 Not necessary to examine Art. 14 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.08.1999 - 26972/95
• EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 26972/95

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

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 26972/95

  It has previously held that, where an individual is taken into police custody in good health and is found to be injured on release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused (see, among other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 26972/95

  The obligation on the authorities to account for the treatment of an individual in custody is particularly stringent where that individual dies (Salman v. Turkey ([GC], no. 21986/93, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 26972/95

  As it has held in previous cases, however, that does not preclude the complaint in relation to Article 2 from being an "arguable" one for the purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52; Kaya, cited above, § 107).

• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 23502/06

  Bomben auf kurdische Dörfer: Türkei muss Schmerzensgeld zahlen

  In support of their submissions the applicants referred to a number of judgments in which the Court found violations of various Convention provisions on account of enforced disappearances, intentional destruction of villages and killings perpetrated by agents of the State in the Sırnak area, as well as on account of the failures to carry out effective investigations into those incidents (see Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, ECHR 2000-V; Ahmet Özkan and Others, cited above; Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, ECHR 2000-VI; Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, 14 November 2000; Dündar v. Turkey, no. 26972/95, 20 September 2005; Tanıs and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, ECHR 2005-VIII).