Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IKINCISOY v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. ... 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 34, Art. 41, Art. 9 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 with regard to death Violation of Art. 2 with regard to lack of effective investigation No violation of Art. 3 Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 5 with regard to relatives of applicants No violation of Art. 5 with regard to ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 26.02.1996 - 26144/95
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 26144/95

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 26144/95

  The applicants' complaints in this regard are therefore "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52, and Kaya , cited above, § 107).
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 26144/95

  Promptness has to be assessed in each case according to its special features (see De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands , judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, pp. 24-25, §§ 51-52).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 26144/95

  The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eye-witness testimony (see, concerning witnesses, for example, Tanrkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 109, ECHR 1999-IV).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 26144/95

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII, Çakc , cited above, § 85, Ertak v. Turkey , no. 20764/92, § 32, ECHR 2000-V, Timurta v. Turkey , no. 23531/94, § 82, ECHR 2000-VI, and Orhan , cited above, § 327).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 26144/95

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII, Çakc , cited above, § 85, Ertak v. Turkey , no. 20764/92, § 32, ECHR 2000-V, Timurta v. Turkey , no. 23531/94, § 82, ECHR 2000-VI, and Orhan , cited above, § 327).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 26144/95

  Where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic authorities and, as a general rule, it is for those authorities to assess the evidence before them (see Klaas v. Germany , judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, p. 17, § 29).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 26144/95

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings also requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective ( McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, §§ 146-147).
• EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 26129/95

  TANLI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 26144/95

     57.  A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Tanli v. Turkey (no. 26129/95, §§ 92-105, ECHR 2001-III) and Dalklç v. Turkey (no. 25756/94, §§ 15-16, 5 December 2002).
• EGMR, 09.05.2000 - 20764/92

  ERTAK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 26144/95

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII, Çakc , cited above, § 85, Ertak v. Turkey , no. 20764/92, § 32, ECHR 2000-V, Timurta v. Turkey , no. 23531/94, § 82, ECHR 2000-VI, and Orhan , cited above, § 327).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 26144/95

     77.  For an investigation into an alleged unlawful killing by State agents to be effective, it may generally be regarded as necessary for the persons responsible for and carrying out the investigation to be independent from those implicated in the events ( Güleç v. Turkey , judgment of 27 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, §§ 81-82, and Our v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

• EGMR, 02.04.2020 - 8938/07

  KUKHALASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Secondly, from the few documents submitted by the applicants, it cannot be established with certainty that they were exclusively financially dependent upon their deceased family members (compare, for instance, Gakiyev and Gakiyeva v. Russia, no. 3179/05, §§ 171-73, 23 April 2009; Albekov and Others v. Russia, no. 68216/01, §§ 125-127, 9 October 2008; and Ikincisoy v. Turkey, no. 26144/95, § 137, 27 July 2004).
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 15397/02

  KAVAKLIOGLU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Cela étant, compte tenu du nombre des requérants parties à la présente procédure et du fait que ces derniers se trouvent actuellement soit en liberté soit dispersés dans plusieurs prisons, et considérant que, tout au long de la procédure, Me Bayraktar a agi en qualité de porte-parole de ses neuf confrères, la Cour estime devoir prendre - comme déjà par le passé (voir, mutatis mutandis, Osmanoglu c. Turquie, no 48804/99, § 131, 24 janvier 2008, Koku c. Turquie, no 27305/95, § 203, 31 mai 2005, et Ikincisoy c. Turquie, no 26144/95, § 154, 27 juillet 2004) - une décision exceptionnelle concernant la modalité de remboursement des frais et dépens, même si aucune précision dans ce sens ne lui a été donnée par les requérants (article 22 de l"« instruction pratique ", citée au paragraphe 298 ci-dessus).
• EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 62736/09

  VASSIS ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Nevertheless, while the Court has previously held that a delay of two or three days before a person is brought before "a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power" meets the promptness requirement embodied in the words "brought promptly before", this concerned cases in which the beginning of a period of police custody had coincided with that of the deprivation of liberty (see, inter alia, Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 51, ECHR 1999-III; Ayaz and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 11804/02, 27 May 2004; and Ikincisoy v. Turkey, no. 26144/95, § 103, 27 July 2004).
• EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 72080/12

  SHAVADZE v. GEORGIA

  However, having regard to the applicant's failure to submit any documents in support of her claim, it cannot be established with certainty that she was exclusively financially dependent on her deceased husband (compare, for instance, Kukhalashvili and Others, cited above, § 162; Albekov and Others v. Russia, no. 68216/01, §§ 125-27, 9 October 2008; and Ikincisoy v. Turkey, no. 26144/95, § 137, 27 July 2004).