Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 27.07.1998 - 21593/93 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1998,20960) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GÜLEÇ c. TURQUIE
Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement) Violation de l'Art. 2 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GÜLEÇ v. TURKEY
Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) Violation of Art. 2 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 30.08.1994 - 21593/93
- EGMR, 27.07.1998 - 21593/93
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (1)
- EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.1998 - 21593/93
The obligation to protect the right to life under this provision, 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 by, inter alios, agents of the State (see the McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 50, § 169, and the Kaya judgment cited above, p. 324, § 86).
- EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 44297/06
MEZHIYEVA v. RUSSIA
The Government submitted that the investigation had been conducted by independent prosecution agencies (see Gülec v. Turkey, no. 21593/93, 27 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, §§ 81-82, and Ögur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, 20 May 1999, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III) and that it had been prompt and expedient, having started on the very day of the explosion (see Cakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, 8 July 1999, ECHR 1999-IV, §§ 80, 87, 106; Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, 8 July 1999, ECHR 1999-IV, § 109; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, 28 March 2000, ECHR 2000-III, §§ 106-107).