Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 41964/98   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2006,71189
EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 41964/98 (https://dejure.org/2006,71189)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27.06.2006 - 41964/98 (https://dejure.org/2006,71189)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27. Juni 2006 - 41964/98 (https://dejure.org/2006,71189)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,71189) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

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

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (12)

  • EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 22746/03

    OLMEZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

    Au demeurant, même dans les affaires ayant entraîné un constat de violation procédurale de l'article 2 (Fatma Kaçar c. Turquie, no 35838/97, 15 juillet 2005, TürkoÄ?lu c. Turquie, no 34506/97, 17 mars 2005, Mentese et autres c. Turquie, no 36217/97, 18 janvier 2005, et Cennet Ayhan et Mehmet Salih Ayhan c. Turquie, no 41964/98, 27 juin 2006), la Cour n'aurait jamais accueilli une demande formulée au titre d'une perte de revenus.
  • EGMR, 23.04.2015 - 36367/09

    KAGIROV c. RUSSIE

    It is incumbent on the respondent Government claiming non-exhaustion to indicate to the Court with sufficient clarity the remedies to which the applicants have not had recourse and to satisfy the Court that the remedies were effective and available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that they were accessible, were capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 68, and Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan v. Turkey, no. 41964/98, § 65, 27 June 2006).
  • EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 38726/05

    PELEVIN v. RUSSIA

    It is incumbent on the respondent Government claiming non-exhaustion to indicate with sufficient clarity the remedies to which the applicant did not have recourse and to satisfy the Court that the remedies were effective and available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that they were accessible, were capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan v. Turkey, no. 41964/98, § 65, 27 June 2006).
  • EGMR, 09.02.2010 - 58933/00

    ADIYAMAN v. TURKEY

    In this connection, the Court notes that the applicant, who appears to have been reluctant throughout this time to be involved in the ongoing investigation or proceedings, does not challenge the findings of the Diyarbakır Assize Court before this Court (see, a contrario, Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan v. Turkey, no. 41964/98, § 69, 27 June 2006).
  • EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 74321/01

    KOSTI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    There is no obligation to have recourse to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see, among others, Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan v. Turkey, no. 41964/98, § 64, 27 June 2006).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2007 - 48545/99

    MEHMET SAH CELIK v. TURKEY

    There is no obligation to have recourse to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see, among others, Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan v. Turkey, no. 41964/98, § 64, 27 June 2006).
  • EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 13418/03

    DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA

    However, there is no obligation to have recourse to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see, for example, Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, §§ 51-52, Reports 1996-VI; Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, §§ 65-67, Reports 1996-IV; and, more recently, Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan v. Turkey, no. 41964/98, § 64, 27 June 2006).
  • EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 44936/04

    BABAT AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    However, for the Court, the required evidentiary standard of proof for the purposes of the Convention is that of "beyond reasonable doubt", and such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, among other authorities, Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan v. Turkey, no. 41964/98, § 79, 27 June 2006).
  • EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 7654/02

    AYUBOV v. RUSSIA

    It is incumbent on the respondent Government claiming non-exhaustion to indicate to the Court with sufficient clarity the remedies to which the applicants have not had recourse and to satisfy the Court that the remedies were effective and available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that they were accessible, were capable of providing redress in respect of the applicants" complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Aksoy v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, §§ 51-52; Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, § 65-68; and, most recently, Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan v. Turkey, no. 41964/98, § 64-65, 27 June 2006).
  • EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 5346/03

    MÜNIRE DEMIREL v. TURKEY

    The Court held, particularly in Kosti and Others (cited above, §§ 18-19), that only available and adequate remedies had to be tried under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and that the burden of proof was on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that a remedy was effective and available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, i.e. that it was accessible, was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicants" complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see also Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan v. Turkey, no. 41964/98, § 65, 27 June 2006).
  • EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 42403/09

    AZARKAN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 13752/06

    BOZTAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht