Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2003,41216
EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94 (https://dejure.org/2003,41216)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.04.2003 - 24351/94 (https://dejure.org/2003,41216)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. April 2003 - 24351/94 (https://dejure.org/2003,41216)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2003,41216) 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

    AKTAS v. TURKEY

    Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 13, Art. 14+2, Art. 14, Art. 14+3, Art. 34, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of Art. 2 Violation of Art. 3 Not necessary to examine Art. 6 Violation of Art. 13 No violation of Art. 14 Failure to fulfil obligations under Art. 38 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    AKTAS c. TURQUIE [Extraits]

    Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 13, Art. 14+2, Art. 14, Art. 14+3, Art. 34, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation de l'art. 2 Violation de l'art. 3 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 6 Violation de l'art. 13 Non-violation de l'art. 14 Manquement aux obligations de l'art. 38 Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement ...

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 ... (52)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

  • EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

    Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94
    The provincial administration council had only become aware of the case on 29 November 1990, several days after Yakup Aktas's death; in any event, for the reasons stated in the Court's OÄ?ur v. Turkey judgment of 20 May 1999 (no. 21594/93, ECHR 1999-III, § 91), this administrative body could not be considered independent and was unlikely to instigate effective investigative measures.

    For an investigation into an alleged unlawful killing by State agents to be effective, it may generally be regarded as necessary for the persons responsible for and carrying out the investigation to be independent from those implicated in the events (Güleç v. Turkey judgment of 27 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, §§ 81-82, and OÄ?ur, cited above, no. 21594/93, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III).

    The Court recalls that in the Kurt judgment (cited above, p. 1195, §§ 174-75) the sum of GBP 15, 000 was awarded for violations of the Convention under Articles 5 and 13 in respect of the disappearance of the applicant's son while in custody, which sum was to be held by the applicant for her son and his heirs, while the applicant received an award of GBP 10, 000 in her own favour, due to the circumstances of the case which had led the Court to find a breach of Articles 3 and 13. In the present case, the Court has held, in addition to breaches of Articles 5 and 13, that there has been a violation of the right to respect for life guaranteed under Article 2 and torture contrary to Article 3. Noting the awards made in previous cases from south-east Turkey concerning these provisions (see, concerning Article 3, the Aksoy judgment cited above, pp. 2289-90, § 113, the Aydin judgment cited above, p. 1903, § 131, the Tekin judgment cited above, pp. 1521-22, § 77; and, concerning Article 2, the Kaya judgment cited above, p. 333, § 122, the Güleç v. Turkey judgment of 27 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1734, § 88, the Ergi v. Turkey judgment of 28 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1785, § 110, the Yasa judgment cited above, pp. 2444-45, § 124, and OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 98, ECHR 1999-III) and having regard to the circumstances of this case, the Court has decided to award the sum of GBP 25, 000 in total in respect of non-pecuniary damage to be held by the applicant for his brother's heirs.".

    As regards non-pecuniary damage,... the Court has held that there has been a substantive and a procedural violation of Article 2. Noting the awards made in previous cases involving the application of the same provision in south-eastern Turkey (see the Kaya judgment cited above, p. 333, § 122; the Güleç judgment cited above, p. 1734, § 88; the Ergi v. Turkey judgment of 28 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1785, § 110; the Yasa judgment cited above, pp. 2444-45, § 124; and OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 98, ECHR 1999-III) and having regard to the circumstances of this case, the Court awards the sum of GBP 20, 000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be held by the applicant on behalf of his son's widow and four children.".

  • EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94
    The Court reiterates 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 the appropriate case, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, judgment of 13 June 1994 (former Article 50), Series A no. 285-C, §§ 16-20; Çakıcı cited above, § 127; Selçuk and Asker cited above, § 112; and Orhan cited above, § 430).

    As regards the applicant's claims for loss of earnings, the Court's case-law establishes 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 the appropriate case, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see, amongst other authorities, the Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain judgment of 13 June 1994 (Article 50), Series A no. 285-C, pp.

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94
    In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his or her own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Tekin v. Turkey, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, pp. 1517-18, §§ 52 and 53, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 120, ECHR 2000-IV).
     
  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 6538/74

    SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1) (ARTICLE 50)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94
    The question to be decided in such cases is the level of just satisfaction, in respect of either past and future pecuniary loss, which it is necessary to award to an applicant, the matter to be determined by the Court at its discretion, having regard to what is equitable (Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 6 November 1989 (former Article 50), Series A no. 38, p. 9, § 15; Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. the United Kingdom (just satisfaction), nos.
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

    ILHAN c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94
    They cannot leave it to the initiative of the next of kin either to lodge a formal complaint or to take responsibility for the conduct of any investigatory procedures (see, for example, mutatis mutandis, Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC] no. 22277/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 25801/94

    DULAS v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94
    No provision is made, as in other substantive clauses of the Convention and its Protocols, for exceptions and no derogation from it is possible under Article 15 (Aksoy v. Turkey judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, § 62, Dulas v. Turkey, no. 25801/94, § 52, ECHR 2001, Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey judgment of 24 April 1998, Reports 1998-II, § 75; and Orhan, cited above, § 351).
  • EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

    BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94
    The applicant's complaints in this regard are therefore "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 (see the Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52, the Kaya judgment cited above, § 107, and Tanlı v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 172).
  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

    TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94
    The Court has previously held that it is of the utmost importance for the effective operation of the system of individual petition instituted under former Article 25 of the Convention (now replaced by Article 34) that States should furnish all necessary facilities to make possible a proper and effective examination of applications (Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 70, ECHR 1999-IV).
  • EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

    TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94
    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 (Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94 §§ 66 and 70, ECHR 2000-VI).
  • EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

    ORHAN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94
    The same applies to delays by the State in submitting information which prejudices the establishment of facts in a case (Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 266).
  • EGMR, 09.05.2000 - 20764/92

    ERTAK c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

    RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  • EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

    McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  • EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 25965/04

    RANTSEV v. CYPRUS AND RUSSIA

    In this respect, the Court reiterates 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 the appropriate case, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see, inter alia, Aktas v. Turkey, no. 24351/94, § 352, ECHR 2003-V (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

    Opuz ./. Türkei

    La Cour a en outre admis que la procédure prévue par la Convention ne se prêtait pas toujours à une application rigoureuse du principe affirmanti incumbit probatio - la preuve incombe à celui qui affirme (Aktas c. Turquie (extraits), no 24351/94, § 272, CEDH 2003-V).
  • EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12

    Ungarn verstößt gegen Menschenrechtskonvention

    Although these principles have mainly been applied in the context of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see Aktas v. Turkey, no. 24351/94, § 79, ECHR 2003-V (extracts), and El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 151-152, ECHR 2012), the Court observes that there are examples in which they have been applied in respect of other Convention rights (Article 5 in Creanga v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, §§ 88-90, 23 February 2012; Article 8 in Fadeyeva, cited above; Article 11 in Makhmudov v. Russia, no. 35082/04, §§ 68-73, 26 July 2007; and Article 14 in D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, §§ 177-179, ECHR 2007-IV).
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