Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KAYA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) No violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) No violation of Art. 5 Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Just ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 4451/02
• EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 4451/02

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 4451/02

  For the reasons set out above (see paragraphs 38 to 40 above), no effective investigation can be considered to have been conducted in accordance with Article 13, the requirements of which are broader than the obligation to investigate imposed by Article 2 (see Orhan, cited above, § 387; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey, [GC], no. 23763/94, § 119, ECHR 1999-IV; TekdaÄ?, cited above, § 98).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 4451/02

  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, 08.01.2008 - 54169/00

  ENZILE ÖZDEMIR v. TURKEY

  As to the second limb of the Government's objections, the Court notes, firstly, that it has already examined and rejected similar preliminary objections in so far as they relate to civil and administrative remedies (see, for example, Kaya and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4451/02, 4 October 2005).

  The procedural obligations of Article 2 also apply to cases where a person has disappeared in circumstances which may be regarded as life-threatening and time passes without any news (see, for example, Kaya and Others v. Turkey, no. 4451/02, § 37, 24 October 2006).

• EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08

  NAGMETOV v. RUSSIA

  It has been the Court's prevailing practice that it normally looks only to the items actually claimed and will not of its own motion consider whether the applicant has been otherwise prejudiced (see The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (Article 50), 6 November 1980, § 14, Series A no. 38; see also, among many others, Kaya and Others v. Turkey, no. 4451/02, §§ 56-57, 24 October 2006; and Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc.