Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MUSTAFA TUNÇ ET FECIRE TUNÇ c. TURQUIE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Partiellement irrecevable Violation de l'article 2 - Droit à la vie (Article 2-1 - Enquête efficace) (Volet procédural) Préjudice moral - réparation (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MUSTAFA TUNÇ AND FECIRE TUNÇ v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey

  [16.04.2014]

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 24014/05
• EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 24014/05

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 24014/05

  Nonetheless, it should be noted that these were not gendarmes who had been stationed on the site of the incident (see, a contrario, Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 342, 18 June 2002), that there was no hierarchical link between them and those individuals who, like M.S., were likely to be involved, and that they were also not direct colleagues of those individuals (see Putintseva v. Russia, no. 33498/04, § 52, 10 May 2012, or, a contrario, Aktas v. Turkey, no. 24351/94, § 301, ECHR 2003-V, and Bektas and Özalp v. Turkey, no. 10036/03, § 66, 20 April 2010).
• EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94

  AKTAS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 24014/05

  Nonetheless, it should be noted that these were not gendarmes who had been stationed on the site of the incident (see, a contrario, Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 342, 18 June 2002), that there was no hierarchical link between them and those individuals who, like M.S., were likely to be involved, and that they were also not direct colleagues of those individuals (see Putintseva v. Russia, no. 33498/04, § 52, 10 May 2012, or, a contrario, Aktas v. Turkey, no. 24351/94, § 301, ECHR 2003-V, and Bektas and Özalp v. Turkey, no. 10036/03, § 66, 20 April 2010).
• EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 10036/03

  BEKTAS AND ÖZALP v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 24014/05

  Nonetheless, it should be noted that these were not gendarmes who had been stationed on the site of the incident (see, a contrario, Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 342, 18 June 2002), that there was no hierarchical link between them and those individuals who, like M.S., were likely to be involved, and that they were also not direct colleagues of those individuals (see Putintseva v. Russia, no. 33498/04, § 52, 10 May 2012, or, a contrario, Aktas v. Turkey, no. 24351/94, § 301, ECHR 2003-V, and Bektas and Özalp v. Turkey, no. 10036/03, § 66, 20 April 2010).

 
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 24014/05

  The Court reiterates that, in accordance with its consistent case-law where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities - as in the case of persons within their control in custody -, it is incumbent on the State to give a convincing explanation for any injuries and deaths occurring during such detention (see, respectively, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V, and Salman, cited above, § 99).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 24014/05

  For practical reasons, Mustafa Tunç will continue to be called "the applicant" in this judgment, although his wife and children are now to be regarded as such (see, for example, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, ECHR 1999-VI).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 24014/05

  This means not only a lack of hierarchical or institutional connection but also a practical independence (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 138, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 26307/95

  Entscheidung der Großen Kammer über die an sie nach Art. 43 Europäische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 24014/05

  In support of their arguments, they referred, inter alia, to the cases of Salman v. Turkey ([GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII); Güleç v. Turkey (27 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV); OÄŸur v. Turkey ([GC], no. 21594/93, ECHR 1999-III); Tahsin Acar v. Turkey ([GC], no. 26307/95, ECHR 2004-III); Ergi v. Turkey (28 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV); Gül v. Turkey (no. 22676/93, 14 December 2000); and Kismir v. Turkey (no. 27306/95, 31 May 2005).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 24014/05

  However, the requisite access of the public or the victim's relatives may be provided for in other stages of the procedure (see, among other authorities, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 129, ECHR 2001-III).