Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ERDOGAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violations of Art. 2 (deaths and failure to investigate effectively) No separate issue under Art. 6 Violation of Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 16.01.1996 - 19807/92
• EGMR, 25.04.2006 - 19807/92

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2006 - 19807/92

  The circumstances in which deprivation of life may be justified must therefore be strictly construed (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 97, ECHR 2000-VII).

  The applicants" complaints in this regard are therefore "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 (see, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 122, ECHR 2000-VII).

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2006 - 19807/92

  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).

  Thirdly, the present case is, if not identical, at least similar, to the case of McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324), in which the Court did not make an award in respect of any kind of damage, seeing that "the three terrorist suspects who were killed had been intending to plant a bomb in Gibraltar".

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2006 - 19807/92

  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 of the Convention 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 Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 86, ECHR 1999-IV).

 
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93

  KILIÇ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2006 - 19807/92

  The first sentence of Article 2 § 1 enjoins the State not only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps within its internal legal order to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (see Kiliç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 62, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 18.05.2000 - 41488/98

  VELIKOVA c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2006 - 19807/92

  Article 2, which safeguards the right to life and sets out the circumstances when deprivation of life may be justified, ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention, from which no derogation is permitted (see Velikova v. Bulgaria, no. 41488/98, § 68, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2006 - 19807/92

  The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws safeguarding the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 137, ECHR 2002-IV).

• EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 23458/02

  GIULIANI c. ITALIE

  De ce fait, ils invitent la Cour à traiter avec précaution les conclusions de l'autorité judiciaire nationale (Erdogan et autres c. Turquie, no 19807/92, 25 avril 2006).

  Se référant à la jurisprudence de la Cour (notamment aux affaires Simsek c. Turquie; Sergey Vasilyevich Shevschenko c. Ukraine, Erdogan et autres c. Turquie, no 19807/92, 25 avril 2006 ), les requérants rappellent que la Cour a le pouvoir de prendre en compte tous les éléments du dossier afin d'apprécier s'il y eu violation de l'article 2 de la Convention.

• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02

  KYRIACOU TSIAKKOURMAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Though the Court is not bound by the findings of domestic courts and remains free to make its own assessment in the light of all the material before it, in normal circumstances it requires cogent elements to lead it to depart from the reasoned findings of fact reached by the national judicial authorities, particularly where, as in the present case, the Court has not itself had the benefit of examining the relevant witnesses and forming its own assessment of their credibility (see Erdogan and Others v. Turkey, no. 19807/92, § 71, 25 April 2006, and Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 4133/16

  AHMET TUNÇ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court refers in this connection to the principles set out in its case-law in respect of the substantive and procedural obligations under that Article (see, for instance, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 148-49, Series A no. 324; Isayeva and Others, cited above, §§ 168-200 and §§ 208-25; Erdogan and Others v. Turkey, no. 19807/92, §§ 65-95, 25 April 2006; Finogenov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18299/03 and 27311/03, §§ 206-82, ECHR 2011 (extracts); Gülbahar Özer and Others v. Turkey, no. 44125/06, §§ 58-76, 2 July 2013; Cangöz and Others v. Turkey, no. 7469/06, §§ 105-49, 26 April 2016; Döndü Günel v. Turkey, no. 34673/07, §§ 22-35, 6 September 2016; and Tagayeva and Others v. Russia, nos.