Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GETIREN v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  The brother has standing to continue the present proceedings in the applicant"s stead Partly inadmissible Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 ...

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 10301/03

  The Court reiterates that Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies, making no provision for exceptions, and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 10301/03

  It further reiterates that in a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of the proceedings, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close family members expressing their wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, among many others, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI; Latif Fuat Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 54673/00, § 27, 2 February 2006; Mutlu v. Turkey, no. 8006/02, §§ 13-14, 10 October 2006; and Hanbayat v. Turkey, no. 18378/02, § 20, 17 July 2007).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 10301/03

  The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in the following judgments: Batı and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§ 96-100, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)), and ÇobanoÄ?lu and Budak v. Turkey (no. 45977/99, §§ 29 and 30, 30 January 2007).

 
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

  BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 10301/03

  The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in the following judgments: Batı and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§ 96-100, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)), and ÇobanoÄ?lu and Budak v. Turkey (no. 45977/99, §§ 29 and 30, 30 January 2007).
• EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 54673/00

  LATIF FUAT ÖZTÜRK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 10301/03

  It further reiterates that in a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of the proceedings, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close family members expressing their wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, among many others, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI; Latif Fuat Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 54673/00, § 27, 2 February 2006; Mutlu v. Turkey, no. 8006/02, §§ 13-14, 10 October 2006; and Hanbayat v. Turkey, no. 18378/02, § 20, 17 July 2007).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 10301/03

  The Court reiterates in this connection that the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6. Their rationale lies, inter alia, in the protection of the accused against improper compulsion by the authorities, thereby contributing to the avoidance of miscarriages of justice and to the fulfilment of the aims of Article 6. The right not to incriminate oneself, in particular, presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 100, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 8006/02

  MUTLU v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 10301/03

  It further reiterates that in a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of the proceedings, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close family members expressing their wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, among many others, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI; Latif Fuat Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 54673/00, § 27, 2 February 2006; Mutlu v. Turkey, no. 8006/02, §§ 13-14, 10 October 2006; and Hanbayat v. Turkey, no. 18378/02, § 20, 17 July 2007).
• EGMR, 30.01.2007 - 45977/99

  ÇOBANOGLU ET BUDAK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 10301/03

  The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in the following judgments: Batı and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§ 96-100, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)), and ÇobanoÄ?lu and Budak v. Turkey (no. 45977/99, §§ 29 and 30, 30 January 2007).
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 18378/02

  HANBAYAT v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 10301/03

  It further reiterates that in a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of the proceedings, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close family members expressing their wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, among many others, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI; Latif Fuat Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 54673/00, § 27, 2 February 2006; Mutlu v. Turkey, no. 8006/02, §§ 13-14, 10 October 2006; and Hanbayat v. Turkey, no. 18378/02, § 20, 17 July 2007).

• EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03

  MERYEM ÇELIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  It concludes therefore that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the applicants" remaining complaints under the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, § 132, 22 July 2008; Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 271, ECHR 2005-II); and Güveç v. Turkey, no. 70337/01, § 135, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 3653/05

  ASADBEYLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of the proceedings it has taken into account statements from the applicant's heirs or close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, among many others, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI; Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 45, 19 May 2004; Mutlu v. Turkey, no. 8006/02, §§ 13-14, 10 October 2006; Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, § 65, 25 October 2007; and Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, §§ 60-62, 22 July 2008).
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14

  KLIMOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already, in a number of cases in which applicants have died in the course of the proceedings, examined and confirmed the locus standi of their heirs or close relatives, such as brothers or sisters, to pursue the proceedings before the Court, including in cases brought under Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014; Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 58-68, 13 November 2012; Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, §§ 61-62, 22 July 2008; and Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 45, 19 May 2004).