Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 15028/09   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2015,14518
EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 15028/09 (https://dejure.org/2015,14518)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23.06.2015 - 15028/09 (https://dejure.org/2015,14518)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23. Juni 2015 - 15028/09 (https://dejure.org/2015,14518)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,14518) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

  • EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 59745/00

    GÜNDÜZ contre la TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 15028/09
    Statements which constitute incitement to violence not only arouse a well-founded fear and render the persons in question vulnerable to violence, but also run counter to the fundamental values of justice and peace set forth in the Preamble to the Convention, as well as to the founding principles of a pluralist democracy (see Gündüz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 59745/00, ECHR 2003-XI (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

    PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 15028/09
    It has thus, by applying the test set out in the Osman judgment, defined the scope of these obligations in instances concerning the requirement of personal protection of one or more individuals identifiable in advance as the potential targets of a lethal act as entailing the necessary analysis of whether there was any decisive stage in the sequence of events leading up to the deprivation of life when it could be said that the authorities knew, or ought to have known, of a real and immediate risk to the life of the individual, and whether they failed to take the necessary measures to avoid that risk (see, for example, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 57, ECHR 2002-II (murder of a prisoner); Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, §§ 52-53, 15 January 2009; and Opuz, cited above, § 129, (killings in the context of domestic violence); Van Colle v. the United Kingdom, no. 7678/09, § 88, 13 November 2012 (killing of a witness); Kiliç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-III; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 88, ECHR 2000-III (killing of an individual in a conflict zone); and Yabansu and Others v. Turkey, no. 43903/09, § 91, 12 November 2013 (killing of an individual by a third party during military service), cited in Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 107, 18 September 2014).
  • EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 7678/09

    VAN COLLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 15028/09
    It has thus, by applying the test set out in the Osman judgment, defined the scope of these obligations in instances concerning the requirement of personal protection of one or more individuals identifiable in advance as the potential targets of a lethal act as entailing the necessary analysis of whether there was any decisive stage in the sequence of events leading up to the deprivation of life when it could be said that the authorities knew, or ought to have known, of a real and immediate risk to the life of the individual, and whether they failed to take the necessary measures to avoid that risk (see, for example, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 57, ECHR 2002-II (murder of a prisoner); Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, §§ 52-53, 15 January 2009; and Opuz, cited above, § 129, (killings in the context of domestic violence); Van Colle v. the United Kingdom, no. 7678/09, § 88, 13 November 2012 (killing of a witness); Kiliç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-III; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 88, ECHR 2000-III (killing of an individual in a conflict zone); and Yabansu and Others v. Turkey, no. 43903/09, § 91, 12 November 2013 (killing of an individual by a third party during military service), cited in Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 107, 18 September 2014).
  • EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12

    BLJAKAJ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 15028/09
    It has thus, by applying the test set out in the Osman judgment, defined the scope of these obligations in instances concerning the requirement of personal protection of one or more individuals identifiable in advance as the potential targets of a lethal act as entailing the necessary analysis of whether there was any decisive stage in the sequence of events leading up to the deprivation of life when it could be said that the authorities knew, or ought to have known, of a real and immediate risk to the life of the individual, and whether they failed to take the necessary measures to avoid that risk (see, for example, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 57, ECHR 2002-II (murder of a prisoner); Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, §§ 52-53, 15 January 2009; and Opuz, cited above, § 129, (killings in the context of domestic violence); Van Colle v. the United Kingdom, no. 7678/09, § 88, 13 November 2012 (killing of a witness); Kiliç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-III; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 88, ECHR 2000-III (killing of an individual in a conflict zone); and Yabansu and Others v. Turkey, no. 43903/09, § 91, 12 November 2013 (killing of an individual by a third party during military service), cited in Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 107, 18 September 2014).
  • EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

    MAKARATZIS c. GRECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 15028/09
    In a number of other cases, the Court considered that Article 2 was applicable to non-fatal shootings where the applicants" lives had been put at serious risk as a result of the conduct of the security forces or third persons (see, for example, Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 49-55, ECHR 2004-XI; Soare and Others v. Romania, no. 24329/02, §§ 108-109, 22 February 2011; Trévalec v. Belgium, no. 30812/07, §§ 55-61, 14 June 2011; Saso Gorgiev v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 49382/06, § 29, ECHR 2012 (extracts); and Yotova v. Bulgaria, no. 43606/04, § 69, 23 October 2012).
  • EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 43903/09

    YABANSU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 15028/09
    It has thus, by applying the test set out in the Osman judgment, defined the scope of these obligations in instances concerning the requirement of personal protection of one or more individuals identifiable in advance as the potential targets of a lethal act as entailing the necessary analysis of whether there was any decisive stage in the sequence of events leading up to the deprivation of life when it could be said that the authorities knew, or ought to have known, of a real and immediate risk to the life of the individual, and whether they failed to take the necessary measures to avoid that risk (see, for example, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 57, ECHR 2002-II (murder of a prisoner); Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, §§ 52-53, 15 January 2009; and Opuz, cited above, § 129, (killings in the context of domestic violence); Van Colle v. the United Kingdom, no. 7678/09, § 88, 13 November 2012 (killing of a witness); Kiliç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-III; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 88, ECHR 2000-III (killing of an individual in a conflict zone); and Yabansu and Others v. Turkey, no. 43903/09, § 91, 12 November 2013 (killing of an individual by a third party during military service), cited in Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 107, 18 September 2014).
  • EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93

    KILIÇ v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 15028/09
    It has thus, by applying the test set out in the Osman judgment, defined the scope of these obligations in instances concerning the requirement of personal protection of one or more individuals identifiable in advance as the potential targets of a lethal act as entailing the necessary analysis of whether there was any decisive stage in the sequence of events leading up to the deprivation of life when it could be said that the authorities knew, or ought to have known, of a real and immediate risk to the life of the individual, and whether they failed to take the necessary measures to avoid that risk (see, for example, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 57, ECHR 2002-II (murder of a prisoner); Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, §§ 52-53, 15 January 2009; and Opuz, cited above, § 129, (killings in the context of domestic violence); Van Colle v. the United Kingdom, no. 7678/09, § 88, 13 November 2012 (killing of a witness); Kiliç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-III; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 88, ECHR 2000-III (killing of an individual in a conflict zone); and Yabansu and Others v. Turkey, no. 43903/09, § 91, 12 November 2013 (killing of an individual by a third party during military service), cited in Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 107, 18 September 2014).
  • EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 43606/04

    YOTOVA c. BULGARIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 15028/09
    In a number of other cases, the Court considered that Article 2 was applicable to non-fatal shootings where the applicants" lives had been put at serious risk as a result of the conduct of the security forces or third persons (see, for example, Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 49-55, ECHR 2004-XI; Soare and Others v. Romania, no. 24329/02, §§ 108-109, 22 February 2011; Trévalec v. Belgium, no. 30812/07, §§ 55-61, 14 June 2011; Saso Gorgiev v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 49382/06, § 29, ECHR 2012 (extracts); and Yotova v. Bulgaria, no. 43606/04, § 69, 23 October 2012).
  • EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 24329/02

    SOARE ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 15028/09
    In a number of other cases, the Court considered that Article 2 was applicable to non-fatal shootings where the applicants" lives had been put at serious risk as a result of the conduct of the security forces or third persons (see, for example, Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 49-55, ECHR 2004-XI; Soare and Others v. Romania, no. 24329/02, §§ 108-109, 22 February 2011; Trévalec v. Belgium, no. 30812/07, §§ 55-61, 14 June 2011; Saso Gorgiev v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 49382/06, § 29, ECHR 2012 (extracts); and Yotova v. Bulgaria, no. 43606/04, § 69, 23 October 2012).
  • EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

    Opuz ./. Türkei

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 15028/09
    The Court considers that these complaints should be examined solely from the standpoint of Article 2 of the Convention (see Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 205, ECHR 2009), which reads as follows:.
  • EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

    PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  • EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

    MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht