Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2001,34327
EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94 (https://dejure.org/2001,34327)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 31.05.2001 - 23954/94 (https://dejure.org/2001,34327)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 31. Mai 2001 - 23954/94 (https://dejure.org/2001,34327)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2001,34327) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    AKDENIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 2 with State's liability for death of eleven missing persons Violation of Art. 2 with regard to failure to conduct an effective investigation Violation of Art. 3 with regard to the missing persons No violation of Art. 3 with regard to the ...

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 ... (16)

  • EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 30078/06

    Konstantin Markin ./. Russland

    The Court has emphasised on several occasions that it was in principle not appropriate for the authorities of a respondent State to enter into direct contact with an applicant in connection with his case before the Court (see Ryabov v. Russia, cited above, §§ 59-65; Fedotova, cited above, § 51; Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, §§ 118-121, 31 May 2001; Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, §§ 169-171, Reports 1998-VIII; and Ergi v. Turkey, 28 July 1998, § 105, Reports 1998-IV).
  • EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 16064/90

    VARNAVA ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

    They argued that the same held true in this case, in particular as there was no reason why the first applicants in this case were not presumed to be dead as in other disappearance cases (e.g. Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, 31 May 2001).

    The inter-State case concerned the phenomenon of disappearances, which, although linked to a specific point of time when the missing person was last seen and the surrounding circumstances, may be distinguished from conventional cases of use of lethal force or unlawful killings which are dealt with under Article 2. In the latter cases, the fate of the victim is known; the former are characterised by an ongoing situation of uncertainty and, not infrequently, callous inaction, obfuscation and concealment (see, amongst many examples, Kurt v. Turkey, judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, §§ 127-128, Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 84, 97, ECHR 2000-VI § 84, 97, Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, § 93, 31 May 2001, Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, §§ 80, 90, 14 November 2000; Imakeyeva v. Russia, §§ 150 165, 9 November 2006, Baysayeva v. Russia, §§ 119, 127 April 2007).

    While it may be noted that in the context of the individual cases arising out of events in south-east Turkey and the conflict in the Chechen Republic, where there were, at the relevant times, numerous reported instances of forced disappearances, individual applicants have nonetheless been required to give an evidential basis for finding that their relatives were taken into some form of custody by agents of the State (see e.g. Kurt v. Turkey, judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, § 99, Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, § 84, 31 May 2001, Sarli v. Turkey, 24490/94, 22 May 2001; Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 141, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)), the Court considers that the situation in the present case may be distinguished.

  • EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06

    ASLAKHANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Thus, the Court has dealt with a "pattern of enforced disappearances" occurring principally between 1992 and 1996 in South-Eastern Turkey (see, among others, OsmanoÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, 24 January 2008; Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, 31 May 2005; Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004-II (extracts); Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, 31 May 2001; Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, 14 November 2000; Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, ECHR 2000-VI; Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, ECHR 2000-V; and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, ECHR 1999-IV).
  • EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 23016/04

    ER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    In its examination of a number of those disappearances the Court reached the conclusion that the disappearance of a person in south-east Turkey at the relevant time could be regarded as life-threatening (see, among other authorities, OsmanoÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, 24 January 2008; Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, 31 May 2005; Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004-II (extracts); Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, 31 May 2001; Çiçek, cited above; Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, 14 November 2000; Timurtas, cited above; Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, ECHR 2000-V; and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, ECHR 1999-IV).
  • EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

    ORHAN v. TURKEY

    The Government added, during the oral hearing before the Court in May 2001, that General Ertürk was the commander of the Bolu regiment and that he had not been called before the Delegates because he had already given evidence to Delegates in another case (Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, judgment of 31 May 2000, unpublished) and had no further information so that there was no point in his repeating before the Delegates, in this case, his previous statements.
  • EGMR, 18.09.2009 - 16064/90

    VARNAVA ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

    The burden of proof may then be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21896/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, §§ 85-89, 31 May 2000); see also cases short of custody, where it is possible to establish that an individual entered a place under those authorities' control and has not been seen since, in which circumstances, the onus is on the Government to provide a plausible explanation of what happened on the premises and to show that the person concerned was not detained by the authorities, but left the premises without subsequently being deprived of his or her liberty (e.g. Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005-VIII; Yusupova and Zaurbekov v. Russia, no. 22057/02, §§ 50-55, 9 October 2008).
  • EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 48804/99

    OSMANOGLU c. TURQUIE

    However, relying on the Court's case-law concerning similar allegations (in particular, Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, § 88, 31 May 2001), the applicant submitted that there was a reasonable presumption of death attributable to the respondent Government which arose from the following factors:.

    In order to reach such a conclusion the Court seeks to establish: (1) that the person was deprived of liberty in life-threatening circumstances; (2) that this deprivation was effected by Government agents; (3) that there has been a lack of information or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty (see, for example, Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 85, ECHR 2000-VI; Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, ECHR 2000-V; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, ECHR 2005-VIII; and Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, 31 May 2001).

  • EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 55523/00

    ANGELOVA AND ILIEV v. BULGARIA

    Elle a également déjà alloué des sommes en ce qui concerne le défunt, après avoir constaté qu'il y avait eu une détention arbitraire ou des actes de torture avant la disparition ou le décès, sommes qui devaient être détenues pour le compte des héritiers du défunt (voir, parmi d'autres, Çakıcı [GC], précité, § 130, et Akdeniz et autres c. Turquie, no 23954/94, § 133, 31 mai 2001).
  • EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 19841/06

    BAGDONAVICIUS ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

    La Cour a souligné à maintes reprises qu'il n'est en principe guère approprié que les autorités d'un État défendeur entrent en contact direct avec un requérant au sujet de l'affaire dont celui-ci l'a saisie (Riabov c. Russie, no 3896/04, §§ 59-65, 31 janvier 2008, Akdeniz et autres c. Turquie, no 23954/94, §§ 118-121, 31 mai 2001, Assenov et autres c. Bulgarie, 28 octobre 1998, §§ 169-171, Recueil 1998-VIII, et Ergi c. Turquie, 28 juillet 1998, § 105, Recueil 1998-IV).
  • EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 25165/94

    AKDENIZ v. TURKEY

    It concludes, therefore, that the applicant's son was subjected to ill-treatment, which, at the least, reaches the threshold of inhuman and degrading treatment and discloses in that respect a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, § 98, 31 May 2001).
  • EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 38187/97

    ADALI v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 28299/95

    NESIBE HARAN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03

    MERYEM ÇELIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 41964/98

    CENNET AYHAN AND MEHMET SALIH AYHAN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 1542/13

    BEÇAJ v. ALBANIA

  • EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 67086/01

    KOROBOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

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