Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 21.02.2002 - 23423/94 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2002,31918) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MATYAR v. TURKEY
Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 18, Art. 34, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
No violation of Art. 3 No violation of Art. 8 or P1-1 No violation of Art. 14 or 18 No violation of Art. 6 or Art. 13 No failure to comply with obligations under Art. 34 (former 25-1) (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 13.05.1996 - 23423/94
- EGMR, 21.02.2002 - 23423/94
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2002 - 23423/94
In the context of the questioning of applicants about their applications under the Convention by authorities exercising a domestic investigative function, this will depend on whether the procedures adopted have involved a form of illicit and unacceptable pressure which may be regarded as hindering the exercise of the right of individual petition (e.g. the Aydin v. Turkey judgment of 25 September 1997, Reports 1997-VI, pp. 1899-1990, §§ 115-117; Salman v. Turkey [GC], 21986/93, § 130 with further references, to be reported in ECHR 2000-VIII). - EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2002 - 23423/94
Insofar as the applicant invokes Article 13 of the Convention, the Court recalls that according to the Court's case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see the Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52). - EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2002 - 23423/94
Where allegations are made under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention however, the Court must conduct a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis, the Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, p. 24, § 32). - EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89
KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2002 - 23423/94
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 the Klaas v. Germany judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, p. 17, § 29).