Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OSMANOGLU c. TURQUIE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41, Art. 14+2 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 2 Violations de l'art. 2 Violation de l'art. 3 Non-violation de l'art. 5 Non-violation de l'art. 14+2 et 14+5 Dommage matériel et préjudice moral - réparation ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OSMANOGLU v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41, Art. 14+2 MRK
  No violation of Art. 2 Violations of Art. 2 Violation of Art. 3 No violation of Art. 5 No violation of Art. 14+2 and 14+5 Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 48804/99
• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 48804/99

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 48804/99

  A failure on a Government's part to submit such information which is in their hands without a satisfactory explanation may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 66 and 70, ECHR 2000-VI).

  In order to reach such a conclusion the Court seeks to establish: (1) that the person was deprived of liberty in life-threatening circumstances; (2) that this deprivation was effected by Government agents; (3) that there has been a lack of information or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty (see, for example, Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 85, ECHR 2000-VI; Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, ECHR 2000-V; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, ECHR 2005-VIII; and Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, 31 May 2001).

• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94

  AKDENIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 48804/99

  However, relying on the Court's case-law concerning similar allegations (in particular, Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, § 88, 31 May 2001), the applicant submitted that there was a reasonable presumption of death attributable to the respondent Government which arose from the following factors:.

  In order to reach such a conclusion the Court seeks to establish: (1) that the person was deprived of liberty in life-threatening circumstances; (2) that this deprivation was effected by Government agents; (3) that there has been a lack of information or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty (see, for example, Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 85, ECHR 2000-VI; Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, ECHR 2000-V; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, ECHR 2005-VIII; and Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, 31 May 2001).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 48804/99

  In that connection, the Court points out that this obligation is not confined to cases where it is apparent that the killing was caused by an agent of the State (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 105, ECHR 2000-VII).

 
• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01

  TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 48804/99

  In order to reach such a conclusion the Court seeks to establish: (1) that the person was deprived of liberty in life-threatening circumstances; (2) that this deprivation was effected by Government agents; (3) that there has been a lack of information or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty (see, for example, Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 85, ECHR 2000-VI; Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, ECHR 2000-V; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, ECHR 2005-VIII; and Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, 31 May 2001).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 48804/99

  The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 49, § 161; and Kaya v. Turkey, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 329, § 105).
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 48804/99

  The Court's case-law has established that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention and that this may, in appropriate cases, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see, among other authorities, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (Article 50), judgment of 13 June 1994, Series A no. 285-C, pp.
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 22947/93

  AKKOC v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 48804/99

  Not every claimed risk to life therefore can entail for the authorities a Convention requirement to take operational measures to prevent that risk from materialising (see Akkoç v. Turkey, nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, § 78, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 48804/99

  It must be stressed at this juncture that, as is the case in respect of the obligation to carry out effective investigations when individuals are killed as a result of the use of force, the obligation to take steps to protect the right to life is not an obligation of result but of means (see, mutatis mutandis, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 113, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 48804/99

  To this end, the Court observes that the manner of his abduction shows many similarities with the disappearances of persons prior to their being killed in south-east Turkey at around the relevant time which have been examined by the Court (see, in particular, Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 283, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts); Nuray Sen v. Turkey (No. 2), no. 25354/94, 30 March 2004; and Çelikbilek, cited above).
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 25354/94

  NURAY SEN v. TURKEY (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 48804/99

  To this end, the Court observes that the manner of his abduction shows many similarities with the disappearances of persons prior to their being killed in south-east Turkey at around the relevant time which have been examined by the Court (see, in particular, Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 283, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts); Nuray Sen v. Turkey (No. 2), no. 25354/94, 30 March 2004; and Çelikbilek, cited above).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27693/95

  CELIKBILEK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

• EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

  Massaker von Katyn

  It can also result from the failure of the authorities to respond to the quest for information by the relatives or from the obstacles placed in their way, leaving them to bear the brunt of the efforts to uncover any facts, where this attitude may be regarded as disclosing a flagrant, continuous and callous disregard of an obligation to account for the fate of the missing person (see, in particular, Açıs v. Turkey, no. 7050/05, §§ 36 and 51-54, 1 February 2011; Varnava and Others, cited above, § 200; OsmanoÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, § 96, 24 January 2008; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 114, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, § 139, 27 July 2006; Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 184, ECHR 2005-XI; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 219, ECHR 2005-VIII; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002; and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06

  ASLAKHANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Thus, the Court has dealt with a "pattern of enforced disappearances" occurring principally between 1992 and 1996 in South-Eastern Turkey (see, among others, OsmanoÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, 24 January 2008; Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, 31 May 2005; Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004-II (extracts); Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, 31 May 2001; Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, 14 November 2000; Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, ECHR 2000-VI; Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, ECHR 2000-V; and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 16.04.2012 - 55508/07

  JANOWIEC AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court emphasises that the finding of such a violation is not limited to cases where the respondent State has been held responsible for the disappearance but can arise where the failure of the authorities to respond to the quest for information by the relatives or the obstacles placed in their way, leaving them to bear the brunt of the efforts to uncover any facts, may be regarded as disclosing a flagrant, continuous and callous disregard of an obligation to account for the fate of the missing person (see, amongst many authorities, Varnava and Others, cited above, § 200; OsmanoÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, § 96, 24 January 2008; Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, § 139, 27 July 2006; Imakayeva, § 164, and Gongadze, § 184, both cited above; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 219, ECHR 2005-VIII; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV).

 
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 7678/09

  VAN COLLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Accordingly, the Court's conclusion above under Article 2 above, that it cannot be said that DC Ridley knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to the life of Giles Van Colle from Mr Brougham, equally supports a finding that there has been no breach of any positive obligation implied by Article 8 of the Convention to safeguard the Giles van Colle's physical integrity (Osman, cited above, § 128; Kontrová v. Slovakia, cited above, § 58; and OsmanoÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, § 107, 24 January 2008).
• EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03

  MERYEM ÇELIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court further noted that in its examination of a number of those disappearances, it had reached the conclusion that the disappearance of a person in south-east Turkey at the relevant time could be regarded as a life-threatening event (see, Er and Others, cited above, § 77, and the following cases cited therein: OsmanoÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, 24 January 2008; Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, 31 May 2005; Ä°pek, cited above; Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, 31 May 2001; Çiçek, cited above; Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, 14 November 2000; Timurtas, cited above; Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, ECHR 2000-V; and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 2952/06

  MUTSOLGOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Furthermore, the Court held that a finding of State involvement in the disappearance of a person is not a condition sine qua non for the purposes of establishing whether that person can be presumed dead; in certain circumstances the disappearance of a person may in itself be considered as life-threatening (see Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, § 90, ECHR 2009-... (extracts), and OsmanoÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, § 57, 24 January 2008).