Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KISMIR v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Not necessary to examine Art. 2 (alleged failure to protect life) Violation of Art. 2 (failure to investigate) Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 13 Not necessary to examine Art. 14 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 27306/95
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27306/95

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27306/95

  In support of her submission, the applicant referred to the judgments in the cases of Tomasi v. France (judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A), Ribitsch v. Austria (judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336), Selmouni v. France, ([GC], no. 25803/94, ECHR 1999-V) and, finally, Tanlı v. Turkey (no. 26129/95, ECHR 2001-III (extracts)).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27306/95

  The failure by a Government to submit such information which is in their hands without a satisfactory explanation may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 66 and 70, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27306/95

  A full description of the relevant domestic law and practice, as well as relevant international reports, may be found in Salman v. Turkey ([GC], no. 21986/93, §§ 59-74, ECHR 2000-VII).

 
• EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 26129/95

  TANLI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27306/95

  In support of her submission, the applicant referred to the judgments in the cases of Tomasi v. France (judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A), Ribitsch v. Austria (judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336), Selmouni v. France, ([GC], no. 25803/94, ECHR 1999-V) and, finally, Tanlı v. Turkey (no. 26129/95, ECHR 2001-III (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27306/95

  However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating a use of lethal force may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their maintenance of the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 108-115, ECHR 2001-III, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, §§ 390-395, ECHR-2001).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27306/95

  However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating a use of lethal force may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their maintenance of the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 108-115, ECHR 2001-III, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, §§ 390-395, ECHR-2001).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27306/95

  In support of her submission, the applicant referred to the judgments in the cases of Tomasi v. France (judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A), Ribitsch v. Austria (judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336), Selmouni v. France, ([GC], no. 25803/94, ECHR 1999-V) and, finally, Tanlı v. Turkey (no. 26129/95, ECHR 2001-III (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27306/95

  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 (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, pp. 45-46, §§ 146-147).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27306/95

  In support of her submission, the applicant referred to the judgments in the cases of Tomasi v. France (judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A), Ribitsch v. Austria (judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336), Selmouni v. France, ([GC], no. 25803/94, ECHR 1999-V) and, finally, Tanlı v. Turkey (no. 26129/95, ECHR 2001-III (extracts)).

• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 56994/09

  KHATAYEV v. RUSSIA

  In such circumstances the Court is bound to conclude that the authorities failed to comply with the requirements of promptness, thoroughness and effectiveness (see Kismir v. Turkey, no. 27306/95, § 117, 31 May 2005; Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, § 103, ECHR 2007-IX; and Vladimir Fedorov, cited above, § 70).
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04

  PREMININY v. RUSSIA

  In such circumstances the Court is bound to conclude that the authorities failed to comply with the requirements of promptness, thoroughness and effectiveness (see Kismir v. Turkey, no. 27306/95, § 117, 31 May 2005; Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, § 103, ECHR 2007-IX; and Vladimir Fedorov, cited above, § 70).
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 24271/03

  GEORGIY BYKOV v. RUSSIA

  In such circumstances the Court is bound to conclude that the authorities failed to comply with the requirement of promptness (see Kismir v. Turkey, no. 27306/95, § 117, 31 May 2005; Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, § 103, ECHR 2007-IX; and Vladimir Fedorov, cited above, § 70).

 
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 19223/04

  VLADIMIR FEDOROV v. RUSSIA

  In such circumstances the Court is bound to conclude that the authorities failed to comply with the requirement of promptness (see Kismir v. Turkey, no. 27306/95, § 117, 31 May 2005, and Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, § 103, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 14156/07

  HAKOBYAN AND AMIRKHANYAN v. ARMENIA

  Other judges of the Court have also spoken out in the past against this judicial approach, which I consider erroneous (see, inter alia, the dissenting opinions of judges Bo?.njak and K?«ris in the case of Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 41216/13, 12 March 2019), judges Nußberger and Ranzoni in Kuzmenko v. Ukraine (no. 49526/07, 9 March 2017), judge De Gaetano in Mariusz Lewandowski v. Poland (no. 66484/09, 3 July 2012), judge Mularoni in Ki??mir v. Turkey (no. 27306/95, 31 May 2005), judges Tulkens, Spielmann and Laffranque in Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC] (no. 36760/06, ECHR 2012), and judges Rozakis, Bratza, Bonello, Loucaides and Jociene in Draon v. France [GC] (no. 1513/03, 6 October 2005)).
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 17828/05

  OCHELKOV v. RUSSIA

  In the light of the shortcomings identified above, the Court concludes that the authorities failed to comply with the requirements of promptness, thoroughness and effectiveness (see Kismir v. Turkey, no. 27306/95, § 117, 31 May 2005; Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, § 103, ECHR 2007-IX; and Vladimir Fedorov, cited above, § 70).
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 14146/02

  ARTYOMOV v. RUSSIA

  In such circumstances the Court is bound to conclude that the authorities failed to comply with the requirement of promptness (see Kismir v. Turkey, no. 27306/95, § 117, 31 May 2005, and Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, § 103, ECHR 2007).
• EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 18357/11

  KUTLU AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  À cet égard, la Cour a examiné un grand nombre d'affaires relatives à des homicides qui avaient été perpétrés dans des circonstances suspectes en garde à vue et en prison en Turquie, ainsi que l'effectivité des enquêtes qui avaient été menées sur ces homicides (voir, en particulier, Salman, précité ; Abdurrahman Orak c. Turquie, no 31889/96, 14 février 2002 ; Süheyla Aydin c. Turquie, no 25660/94, 24 mai 2005 ; Çelikbilek c. Turquie, no 27693/95, 31 mai 2005 ; Ki?Ÿmir c. Turquie, no 27306/95, 31 mai 2005, et Yelden et autres c. Turquie, no 16850/09, 3 mai 2012).