Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2005,37620
EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93 (https://dejure.org/2005,37620)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.03.2005 - 21894/93 (https://dejure.org/2005,37620)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. März 2005 - 21894/93 (https://dejure.org/2005,37620)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,37620) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    AKKUM ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE [Extraits]

    Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 18, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 14+2 MRK
    Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) Non-respect des obligations au titre de l'art. 38 Violation de l'art. 2 en ce qui concerne l'homicide de trois membres de la famille des requérants Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 2 en ce ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 18, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 14+2 MRK
    Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Failure to comply with obligations under Art. 38 Violation of Art. 2 in respect of the killing of the applicants' three relatives Not necessary to examine Art. 2 in respect of the alleged lack of ...

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



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

Wird zitiert von ... (190)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

  • EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93
    As regards the applicants" claim for loss of earnings, 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, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

    ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93
    The Court has already held (see Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV) that the question whether a family member of a "disappeared person" is a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 will depend on the existence of special factors which give the suffering of the applicant a dimension and character distinct from the emotional distress which may be regarded as inevitably caused to relatives of a victim of a serious human-rights violation.
  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93
    Thus, it has found that where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which an issue will arise under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-111; Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
     
  • EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

    Mord an James Bulger

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93
    In order for a punishment or treatment associated with it to be "inhuman" or "degrading", the suffering or humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment (see V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 71, ECHR 1999-IX).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93
    It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93
    Indeed, in such situations the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities (see, inter alia, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 25760/94

    IPEK c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93
    In doing so, the Court will assess the oral evidence given before the delegates and will also have particular regard to the investigation carried out at domestic level in order to establish whether that investigation was capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see, mutatis mutandis, Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, § 170, ECHR 2004-... (extracts), and the authorities cited therein).
  • EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

    McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93
    The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings also requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, pp. 45-46, §§ 146-147).
  • EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

    TOMASI c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93
    Thus, it has found that where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which an issue will arise under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-111; Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
  • EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

    TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93
    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).
  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

    RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  • EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

    Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  • EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

    PEERS v. GREECE

  • EGMR, 24.03.2011 - 23458/02

    Tod eines Demonstranten beim G-8-Gipfel in Genua

    In terms of the Court's case-law, when an applicant adduces prima facie evidence that excessive use was made of lethal force, the onus is on the Government to prove otherwise (see ToÄ?cu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, § 95, 31 May 2005, and Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-II).
  • EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

    Massaker von Katyn

    57941/00, 58699/00 and 60403/00, § 169, 26 July 2007, where the applicant was a witness to the extrajudicial execution of several of his relatives and neighbours; and Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, §§ 258-259, ECHR 2005-II (extracts), where the applicant was presented with the mutilated body of his son).
  • EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 61243/08

    ELBERTE v. LATVIA

    Nor is there any suggestion of mutilation of the body (see Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, §§ 258-259, ECHR 2005-II (extracts), and Akpınar and Altun v. Turkey, no. 56760/00, §§ 84-87, 27 February 2007) or that the corpse had been dismembered and decapitated (see Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, §§ 120-122, 6 November 2008) in the present case.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht