Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 10301/03   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2008,64333
EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 10301/03 (https://dejure.org/2008,64333)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22.07.2008 - 10301/03 (https://dejure.org/2008,64333)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22. Juli 2008 - 10301/03 (https://dejure.org/2008,64333)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,64333) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    GETIREN v. TURKEY

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
    The brother has standing to continue the present proceedings in the applicant"s stead Partly inadmissible Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)




Kontextvorschau:





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (22)  

  • EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 3653/05

    ASADBEYLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

    The Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of the proceedings it has taken into account statements from the applicant's heirs or close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, among many others, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI; Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 45, 19 May 2004; Mutlu v. Turkey, no. 8006/02, §§ 13-14, 10 October 2006; Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, § 65, 25 October 2007; and Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, §§ 60-62, 22 July 2008).
  • EGMR, 13.04.2010 - 32940/08

    TEHRANI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    It concludes therefore that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the applicants' remaining complaints under the Convention (see, for example, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; Çelik v. Turkey (no. 1), no. 39324/02, § 44, 20 January 2009; Juhnke v. Turkey, no. 52515/99, § 99, 13 May 2008; Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, § 132, 22 July 2008; Mehmet Eren v. Turkey, no. 32347/02, § 59, 14 October 2008).
  • EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01

    BÖKE AND KANDEMIR v. TURKEY

    It concludes therefore that there is no need to make a separate ruling on the applicants" remaining complaints under these provisions (see Yalçın Küçük v. Turkey (no. 3), no. 71353/01, § 40, 22 April 2008; Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, § 132, 22 July 2008).
  • EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03

    MERYEM ÇELIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    It concludes therefore that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the applicants" remaining complaints under the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, § 132, 22 July 2008; Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 271, ECHR 2005-II); and Güveç v. Turkey, no. 70337/01, § 135, ECHR 2009).
  • EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 30235/03

    ÖZCAN COLAK v. TURKEY

    It concludes therefore there is no need to make a separate ruling on the applicant's remaining complaints under this provision (see, for example, Juhnke v. Turkey, no. 52515/99, § 94, 13 May 2008, and Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, § 132, 22 July 2008 and the cases referred to therein).
  • EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14

    KLIMOV v. RUSSIA

    The Court has already, in a number of cases in which applicants have died in the course of the proceedings, examined and confirmed the locus standi of their heirs or close relatives, such as brothers or sisters, to pursue the proceedings before the Court, including in cases brought under Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014; Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 58-68, 13 November 2012; Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, §§ 61-62, 22 July 2008; and Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 45, 19 May 2004).
  • EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 23909/03

    DESDE v. TURKEY

    It concludes therefore that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the applicant's remaining complaints under Article 6 § 3 (a) and (d) of the Convention (see Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; Juhnke v. Turkey, no. 52515/99, § 94, 13 May 2008; and Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, § 132, 22 July 2008; and the cases referred to therein).
  • EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 30685/05

    BARAN AND HUN v. TURKEY

    It concludes therefore there is no need to make a separate ruling on the merits of the applicants' remaining complaints under this provision (see, for example, Juhnke v. Turkey, no. 52515/99, § 94, 13 May 2008, and Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, § 132, 22 July 2008 and the cases referred to therein).
  • EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 1915/03

    ARZU v. TURKEY

    Moreover, having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its preceding finding of a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, the Court considers that there is no need to make a separate ruling on the merits of the applicant's complaint concerning the independence and impartiality of the State Security Court under this provision (see Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, § 132, 22 July 2008 and the cases referred to therein).
  • EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 17362/03

    CEVAT SOYSAL v. TURKEY

    It concludes, therefore, that there is no need to make a separate ruling on the applicant's remaining complaints under this provision (see Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007, Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, § 132, 22 July 2008, Güveç v. Turkey, no. 70337/01, § 135, 20 January 2009, and Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 73, 10 March 2009).
  • EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 28451/08

    ÇARKÇI v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 41168/07

    SIDORIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 39414/06

    SERDAR GUZEL v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 74307/01

    GÖK AND GÜLER v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 18623/03

    CAHIT DEMIREL v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 13.04.2010 - 46605/07

    CHARAHILI v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 45465/04

    SAGNAK c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 35257/04

    BAHCELI v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 25381/02

    SEYITHAN DEMIR v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 37291/04

    FIRAT v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 10.11.2009 - 35392/04

    BOLUKOC AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 41967/02

    AYDOGAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht