Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BASBILEN v. TURKEY

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BASBILEN v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 35872/08

  As to the Government's objection regarding the use of the individual application to the Constitutional Court, the Court reiterates that, while it can be subject to exceptions which might be justified by the specific circumstances of each case, the issue of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally determined by reference to the date when the application was lodged with the Court (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)).
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 22412/08

  EMARS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 35872/08

  In this respect, the Court recalls that 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 there is reason to believe that an individual has died in suspicious circumstances (see Emars v. Latvia, no. 22412/08, § 72, 18 November 2014).

• EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 27607/11

  A.K. c. TURQUIE

  Elle estime donc que le requérant ne doit pas se voir opposer l'obligation de soumettre à la juridiction constitutionnelle son grief relatif à l'article 3 de la Convention (voir, dans le même sens, concernant l'article 3 de la Convention, ?žükrü Yildiz c. Turquie, no 4100/10, §§ 42-45, 17 mars 2015, Enver Aydemir c. Turquie, no 26012/11, § 56, 7 juin 2016, et Müftüoglu et autres c. Turquie, nos 34520/10 et 2 autres, § 54, 28 février 2017 ; voir également, concernant l'article 2 de la Convention, Mizrak et Atay c. Turquie, no 65146/12, §§ 45-47, 18 octobre 2016, Sidika Imren c. Turquie, no 47384/11, §§ 47-51, 13 septembre 2016, Ba?Ÿbilen c. Turquie, no 35872/08, §§ 61-63, 26 avril 2016, et Civek c. Turquie, no 55354/11, § 39, 23 février 2016).
• EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 73974/14

  TSALIKIDIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

  The investigation should, in principle, be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case (see Basbilen v. Turkey, no. 35872/08, § 70, 26 April 2016, and Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, § 172, 14 April 2015) and of identifying and - if appropriate - punishing those responsible (see Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 233, ECHR 2016).