Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CENNET AYHAN AND MEHMET SALIH AYHAN v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14+2, Art. 14, Art. 14+13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) No violation of Art. 2 (killing) Violation of Art. 2 (inadequate investigation) Violation of Art. 13 No violation of Art. 14+2 or 14+13 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 06.07.1999 - 41964/98
• EGMR, 29.02.2000 - 41964/98
• EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 41964/98

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 41964/98

  However, according to its established case-law, that does not preclude the complaint in relation to Article 2 from being an "arguable" one for the purposes of the Article 13 (see the following judgments: Orhan, cited above, § 386; Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52, Kaya, cited above, pp. 330-31, § 107; and Yasa, cited above, § 113).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 41964/98

  Furthermore, the next of kin must be involved in the procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests (see Hugh Jordan, cited above, § 109; and OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 92, ECHR 1999-III where the family of the victim had no access to the investigation and court documents).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 41964/98

  A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, pp. 2439-2440, §§ 102-104; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, §§ 80-87 and 106, ECHR 1999-IV; Tanrıkulu, cited above, § 109, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, §§ 106-107, ECHR 2000-III).

 
• EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93

  OZGUR GUNDEM c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 41964/98

  Moreover, in respect of the applicants' reliance on the Susurluk Report, the Court recalls that in its earlier judgments (Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, §§ 95-96; Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 40 ECHR 2000-III), it held that that Report could not be relied on to establish, to the required standard of proof, that State officials were implicated in any particular incident.
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 41964/98

  A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, pp. 2439-2440, §§ 102-104; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, §§ 80-87 and 106, ECHR 1999-IV; Tanrıkulu, cited above, § 109, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, §§ 106-107, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 41964/98

  The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia eye witness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, a visit to the scene of the crime and a ballistics examination as well as an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death (see, concerning autopsies, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; concerning witnesses, Tanrıkulu [GC], cited above, § 109; concerning forensic evidence, Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000; concerning a ballistics examination, OÄ?ur, cited above).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 41964/98

  They cannot leave it to the initiative of the next of kin either to lodge a formal complaint or to take responsibility for the conduct of any investigative procedures (see, for example, mutatis mutandis, Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-VII; and Avsar, cited above, § 393).
• EGMR, 14.12.2000 - 22676/93

  GÜL v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 41964/98

  The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia eye witness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, a visit to the scene of the crime and a ballistics examination as well as an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death (see, concerning autopsies, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; concerning witnesses, Tanrıkulu [GC], cited above, § 109; concerning forensic evidence, Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000; concerning a ballistics examination, OÄ?ur, cited above).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94

  HUGH JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 41964/98

  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", also 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 Cyprus, cited above, § 131; Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 105, ECHR 2001-III (extracts); Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, § 89, 31 May 2001; and Kaya v. Turkey, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 324, § 86).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 41964/98

  The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).
• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94

  AKDENIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE