|EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94|
- 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 ...
- EKMR, 03.04.1995 - 23954/94
- EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94
Wird zitiert von ... (16)
- EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 30078/06
Konstantin Markin ./. RusslandThe 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. TURQUIEThey 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. RUSSIAThus, 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 ÇakÄ±cÄ± v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, ECHR 1999-IV).
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.