Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SÜHEYLA AYDIN v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 14+2, Art. 14+13, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Failure to fulfil obligations under Art. 38 Violation of Art. 2 (killing of applicant's husband) Violation of Art. 2 (failure to investigate) Violation of Art. 3 (applicant's husband) No ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 12.01.1998 - 25660/94
• EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 25660/94

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 25660/94

  57-58, §§ 16-20, and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 127, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 25660/94

  It has previously held that, where an individual is taken into police custody in good health and is found to be injured on release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused (see, among other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 25660/94

  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 (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 66 and 70, ECHR 2000-VI).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 25660/94

  The obligation on the authorities to account for the treatment of an individual in custody is particularly stringent where that individual dies (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 25660/94

  As regards the applicant's 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, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 25660/94

  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, §§ 146-47).

• EGMR, 13.12.2012 - 39630/09

  El Masri klagt gegen Mazedonien

  Lorsqu'un individu formule une allégation défendable de mauvais traitements subis aux mains d'agents de l'Etat, la notion de « recours effectif ", au sens de l'article 13, implique, outre le versement d'une indemnité là où il échet, des investigations approfondies et effectives propres à conduire à l'identification et à la punition des responsables et comportant un accès effectif du plaignant à la procédure d'enquête (Anguelova, précité, §§ 161-162, Assenov et autres, précité, §§ 114 et suiv., Süheyla Aydın c. Turquie, no 25660/94, § 208, 24 mai 2005, et Aksoy, précité, §§ 95 et 98).
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  DENIS VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

  Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see Cobzaru v. Romania, no. 48254/99, §§ 80-82, 26 July 2007; Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, §§ 161-162, ECHR 2002-IV; and Süheyla Aydın v. Turkey, no. 25660/94, § 208, 24 May 2005).
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 3179/05

  GAKIYEV AND GAKIYEVA v. RUSSIA

  As regards the complaint of lack of effective remedies in respect of the applicants" complaint under Article 2 and the first applicant's complaint of ill-treatment under Article 3, the Court emphasises that Article 13 requires, in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the deprivation of life and infliction of treatment contrary to Article 3, including effective access for the complainant to the investigation procedure leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, §§ 161-62, ECHR 2002-IV, and Süheyla Aydın v. Turkey, no. 25660/94, § 208, 24 May 2005).

 
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 35052/04

  ZABIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  As regards the alleged lack of effective remedies in respect of the complaints under Articles 2 and 3 concerning Umar Zabiyev, as well as the first applicant's complaint of ill-treatment under Article 3, the Court emphasises that Article 13 requires, in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the deprivation of life and infliction of treatment contrary to Article 3, including effective access for the complainant to an investigation procedure leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, §§ 161-62, ECHR 2002-IV, and Süheyla Aydın v. Turkey, no. 25660/94, § 208, 24 May 2005).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 27026/10

  BUNTOV v. RUSSIA

  A somewhat similar (although not always identical in scope and nature) obligation also follows from the Court's case-law under Article 13 of the Convention, which provides that in cases involving serious allegations of ill-treatment, Article 13 requires, in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the acts of ill-treatment (see Cobzaru v. Romania, no. 48254/99, §§ 80-82, 26 July 2007; Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, §§ 161-62, ECHR 2002-IV; and Süheyla Aydın v. Turkey, no. 25660/94, § 208, 24 May 2005).
• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 5269/08

  SHCHIBORSHCH AND KUZMINA v. RUSSIA

  Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, §§ 161-62, ECHR 2002-IV; Süheyla Aydın v. Turkey, no. 25660/94, § 208, 24 May 2005 and Cobzaru v. Romania, no. 48254/99, §§ 80-82, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 23039/02

  WEBER ET AUTRES c. POLOGNE

  De plus, il a déjà été dit que cette obligation ne se limite pas aux cas où il se trouve établi que l'Etat est responsable du décès: lorsqu'il est allégué qu'un individu a été tué intentionnellement, le seul fait que les autorités soient informées du décès entraîne ipso facto une obligation sur le terrain de l'article 2 de procéder à une enquête officielle effective (Yasa c. Turquie, 2 septembre 1998, § 100, Recueil 1998-VI ; Süheyla Aydın c. Turquie, no 25660/94, § 171, 24 mai 2005).
• EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 39436/98

  CANAN c. TURQUIE

  Pour appuyer sa thèse, le requérant soutient que la manière dont le meurtre d'Abdullah Canan fut réalisé était très similaire à d'autres cas d'exécution sommaire qui ont fait l'objet d'arrêts de la Cour et cite les affaires Tanıs et autres c. Turquie, (no 65899/01, CEDH 2005-...), Süheyla Aydın c. Turquie, (no 25660/94, 24 mai 2005) et Aktas c. Turquie (no 24351/94, CEDH 2003-V (extraits)).