Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Six month period) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 23016/04

  As regards the applicants" claim for pecuniary damage, the Court's case-law has established that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention and that this may, in appropriate cases, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see, among other authorities, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (Article 50), 13 June 1994, §§ 16-20, Series A no. 285-C, and Çakıcı, cited above, § 127).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 23016/04

  The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 109, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 23016/04

  The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 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 (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 161, Series A no. 324).

 
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 23016/04

  The investigation must also be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see OÄŸur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 88, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94

  AKDENIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 23016/04

  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, OsmanoÄŸlu 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, 09.05.2000 - 20764/92

  ERTAK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 23016/04

  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, OsmanoÄŸlu 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, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 23016/04

  The Court reiterates that the national authorities are responsible for the well-being of persons in custody and that respondent States bear the burden of providing a plausible explanation for any injuries, deaths and disappearances which occur in custody (see, respectively, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII; and Tanıs and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005-VIII).
• EGMR, 10.01.2002 - 62566/00

  HAZAR, TEKTAS, BEKIROGLU, PEKOL, BOZKUS, TEKTAS, ATMAN, ISIK, AKSUCU, DOSTER, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 23016/04

  In such a situation, the six-month period might be calculated from the time when the applicant becomes aware, or should have become aware, of these circumstances (see Hazar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 62566/00, 10 January 2002; Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; and Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 12.01.2006 - 18888/02

  IÇYER c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 23016/04

  In this connection they referred to the decision in the case of Uca v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 3743/06, 29 April 2008), and submitted that the applicants could have applied for compensation under the 2004 Law on Compensation for Losses resulting from Terrorism and the Fight against Terrorism (see Ä°çyer v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18888/02, § 44, ECHR 2006-I).
• EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 3743/06

  UCA c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 23016/04

  In this connection they referred to the decision in the case of Uca v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 3743/06, 29 April 2008), and submitted that the applicants could have applied for compensation under the 2004 Law on Compensation for Losses resulting from Terrorism and the Fight against Terrorism (see Ä°çyer v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18888/02, § 44, ECHR 2006-I).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 25760/94

  IPEK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 73065/01

  BULUT and YAVUZ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01

  TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 24396/94

  TAS v. TURKEY

• EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

  Massaker von Katyn

  Although there are no apparent legal criteria by which the absolute limit on the duration of that period may be defined, it should not exceed ten years (see, by analogy, Varnava and Others, cited above, § 166, and Er and Others v. Turkey, no. 23016/04, §§ 59-60, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 17.09.2014 - 10865/09

  MOCANU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  In their opinion, Mr Stoica's situation was very different from that of the applicants in the case of Er and Others v. Turkey (no. 23016/04, 31 July 2012), as the applicant in the present case had been able at any moment to contact the authorities, who had not attempted to hide the facts or deny the circumstances.
• EGMR, 26.02.2013 - 24589/04

  BOZKIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Thus, in the case of Er and Others v. Turkey (no. 23016/04, §§ 55-58, 31 July 2012) the applicants, who had waited for a period of almost ten years after the disappearance of their relative before lodging their application, were held to have complied with the six-month rule because an investigation was being conducted at the national level into the disappearance (see, a contrario, Yetisen v. Turkey (dec.), no. 21099/06, 10 July 2012).

  Precisely because of the pre-eminent importance of the possibility for the disappeared person's relatives to be able to effectively challenge the State's responsibility, the Court has frequently found an additional violation of Article 13 in such cases (see, for example, Er and Others v. Turkey, no. 23016/04, 31 July 2012, §§ 110-113; Ipek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, 17 February 2004, ECHR 2004-II (extracts), § 198; Togcu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, 31 May 2005, §§ 137-140; and Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 68007/01, 5 July 2007, §§ 93 and 94).

 
• EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 63034/11

  HALIME KILIÇ c. TURQUIE

  À l'appui de ses dires, le Gouvernement cite les affaires Er et autres c. Turquie (no 23016/04, § 52, 31 juillet 2012) et Çiçek et autres c. Turquie (no 28883/05, § 54, 26 mars 2013).
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 23502/06

  Bomben auf kurdische Dörfer: Türkei muss Schmerzensgeld zahlen

  The Court reiterates that whilst a family member of a "disappeared person" may in certain circumstances claim to be a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention on account of their suffering (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 130-134, Reports 1998-III; see also, most recently, Er and Others v. Turkey, no. 23016/04, § 96, 31 July 2012), the same principle would not usually apply to situations where a person is killed by an agent of the State (see, for example, Tanlı v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 159, ECHR 2001-III (extracts)).
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 57856/11

  JELIC v. CROATIA

  Although there are no apparent legal criteria by which the absolute limit on the duration of that period may be defined, it should not exceed ten years (see, by analogy, Varnava and Others, cited above, § 166, and Er and Others v. Turkey, no. 23016/04, §§ 59-60, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 7524/06

  CÜLAZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Dans l'affaire Varnava et autres, précitée, § 166, la Cour a jugé que, après plus de dix ans, les requérants doivent généralement démontrer de façon convaincante que des progrès concrets étaient accomplis pour justifier leur retard à saisir la Cour (Er et autres c. Turquie, no 23016/04, §§ 58-60, 31 juillet 2012 et Tekçi et autres c. Turquie, no 13660/05, §§ 72-76, 10 décembre 2013).
• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 13660/05

  TEKÇI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  C'est pourquoi, à la lumière des éléments soumis à son appréciation, la Cour estime que les requérants ont démontré l'existence de faits et de circonstances spécifiques de nature à justifier l'écoulement d'un tel délai, à savoir la découverte de nouveaux éléments de preuve ou d'informations concernant la disparition de leur proche (Er et autres c. Turquie, no 23016/04, §§ 59-60, 31 juillet 2012).
• EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 44814/07

  KADRI BUDAK c. TURQUIE

  Toujours dans l'affaire Varnava et autres précitée (§ 166), la Cour a jugé que, après plus de dix ans, les requérants doivent généralement démontrer de façon convaincante que des progrès concrets étaient accomplis pour justifier leur retard à la saisir (Er et autres c. Turquie, no 23016/04, §§ 58-60, 31 juillet 2012, Tekçi et autres c. Turquie, no 13660/05, §§ 72-76, 10 décembre 2013, et Cülaz et autres c. Turquie, nos 7524/06 et 39046/10, §§ 142-146, 15 avril 2014).
• EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03

  MERYEM ÇELIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Thus, in the case of Er and Others v. Turkey (no. 23016/04, §§ 55-58, 31 July 2012) the applicants, who had waited for a period of almost ten years after the disappearance of their relative before lodging their application, were held to have complied with the six-month rule because an investigation was being conducted at the national level into the disappearance (see, a contrario, Yetisen v. Turkey (dec.), no. 21099/06, 10 July 2012).
• EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 3534/06

  INCIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 22261/10

  CEYLAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 40787/10

  TASÇI AND DUMAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 520/12

  BESTAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 33898/11

  FINDIK v. TURKEY AND OMER V. TURKEY
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 31848/11

  ÖZSÜREN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 8152/13

  ÇANAKÇI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 28883/05

  ÇIÇEK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY