Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EKMR, 22.05.1995

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2000,32803
EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93 (https://dejure.org/2000,32803)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27.06.2000 - 22277/93 (https://dejure.org/2000,32803)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27. Juni 2000 - 22277/93 (https://dejure.org/2000,32803)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2000,32803) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ILHAN v. TURKEY

    Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objection dismissed (victim) Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion) No violation of Art. 2 Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ILHAN c. TURQUIE

    Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Exception préliminaire retenue (victime) Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement) Non-violation de l'Art. 2 Violation de l'Art. 3 Violation de l'Art. 13 Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel ...

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (313)Zitiert selbst (12)

  • EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

    Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93
    The Court recalls that in the Kurt judgment (cited above, p. 1195, §§ 174-75) the sum of GBP 15, 000 was awarded for violations of the Convention under Articles 5 and 13 in respect of the disappearance of the applicant's son while in custody, which sum was to be held by the applicant for her son and his heirs, while the applicant received an award of GBP 10, 000 in her own favour, due to the circumstances of the case which had led the Court to find a breach of Articles 3 and 13. In the present case, the Court has held, in addition to breaches of Articles 5 and 13, that there has been a violation of the right to respect for life guaranteed under Article 2 and torture contrary to Article 3. Noting the awards made in previous cases from south-east Turkey concerning these provisions (see, concerning Article 3, the Aksoy judgment cited above, pp. 2289-90, § 113, the Aydın judgment cited above, p. 1903, § 131, the Tekin judgment cited above, pp. 1521-22, § 77; and, concerning Article 2, the Kaya judgment cited above, p. 333, § 122, the Güleç v. Turkey judgment of 27 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1734, § 88, the Ergi v. Turkey judgment of 28 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1785, § 110, the Yaşa judgment cited above, pp. 2444-45, § 124, and Oğur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 98, ECHR 1999-III) and having regard to the circumstances of this case, the Court has decided to award the sum of GBP 25, 000 in total in respect of non-pecuniary damage to be held by the applicant for his brother's heirs...".

    As regards non-pecuniary damage,... the Court has held that there has been a substantive and a procedural violation of Article 2. Noting the awards made in previous cases involving the application of the same provision in south-eastern Turkey (see the Kaya judgment cited above, p. 333, § 122; the Güleç judgment cited above, p. 1734, § 88; the Ergi v. Turkey judgment of 28 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1785, § 110; the Yaşa judgment cited above, pp. 2444-45, § 124; and Oğur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 98, ECHR 1999-III) and having regard to the circumstances of this case, the Court awards the sum of GBP 20, 000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be held by the applicant on behalf of his son's widow and four children...".

  • EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86
    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93
    "According to the Court's established case-law, the word 'victim' in the context of Article 25 denotes the person directly affected by the act or omission in issue..." (see the Amuur v. France judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36; see also, among many other authorities, the Lüdi v. Switzerland judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 18, § 34).
  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

    ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93
    Noting the awards made in previous cases from south-east Turkey concerning these provisions (see, for example, concerning Article 3, the Aksoy judgment cited above, pp. 2289-90, § 113, the Aydın judgment cited above, p. 1903, § 131, the Tekin judgment cited above, pp. 1521-22, § 77, Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 130, ECHR 1999-IV, and Mahmut Kaya cited above, § 138) and having regard to the circumstances of this case, the Court has decided to award the sum of GBP 25, 000 in total in respect of non-pecuniary damage to be held by the applicant for his brother Abdüllatif İlhan.
  • EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83
    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93
    As regards the applicant's claims for loss of earnings, the Court's case-law establishes 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 the appropriate case, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see, amongst other authorities, the Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain judgment of 13 June 1994 (Article 50), Series A no. 285-C, pp.
  • EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93
    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 the McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, pp. 45-46, §§ 146-47).
  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93
    Having regard to the severity of the ill-treatment suffered by Abdüllatif İlhan and the surrounding circumstances, including the significant lapse in time before he received proper medical attention, the Court finds that he was a victim of very serious and cruel suffering that may be characterised as torture (see also Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 96-105, ECHR 1999-V).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93
    The inability to make any conclusive findings of fact in that regard derived at least in part from the failure of the authorities to react effectively to those complaints at the relevant time (see also Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88
    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93
    Such persons must be able to show that they were "directly affected" by the measure complained of (see, for example, the Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland judgment of 29 October 1992, Series A no. 246-A, p. 22, § 44).
  • EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

    MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93
    He relied on the judgments delivered on 28 March 2000 in the cases of Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey and Kılıç v. Turkey (no. 22535/93, ECHR 2000-III, and no. 22492/93, ECHR 2000-III).
  • EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93
    The Court has previously held in the context of Article 35 § 1 (former Article 26) of the Convention that the rules of admissibility must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism (see the Cardot v. France judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, p. 18, § 34).
  • EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
  • EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93

    KILIÇ v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 40495/15

    Polizeiliche Tatprovokation (Begriff: mittelbare Tatprovokation - Bestimmtsein …

    Damit eine Person nach Artikel 34 der Konvention eine Beschwerde erheben kann, muss sie in der Lage sein, darzulegen, dass sie von der beschwerdegegenständlichen Maßnahme "unmittelbar betroffen" ist (siehe İlhan./. Türkei [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 22277/93, Rdnr. 52, ECHR 2000-VII;… Burden./. Vereinigtes Königreich [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 13378/05, Rdnr. 33, ECHR 2008, sowie Centre for Legal Resources im Namen von Valentin Câmpeanu./. Rumänien [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 47848/08, Rdnr. 96, ECHR 2014).
  • EGMR, 05.06.2015 - 46043/14

    Schutzpflichten gegenüber dem Leben eines Patienten mit apallischem Syndrom bei …

    In the case of ?lhan v. Turkey ((GC), no. 22277/93, §§ 54-55, ECHR 2000"VII), where the direct victim, Abdüllatif ?lhan, had suffered severe injuries as a result of ill-treatment at the hands of the security forces, the Court held that his brother could be regarded as having validly introduced the application, based on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, since it was clear from the facts that Abdüllatif ?lhan had consented to the proceedings, there was no conflict of interests between himself and his brother, who had been closely concerned with the incident, and he was in a particularly vulnerable position because of his injuries.
  • EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 11364/03

    Rechtmäßigkeit der Untersuchungshaft (rechtsfehlerhafter Haftbefehl; Recht auf …

    Der Gerichtshof weist erneut darauf hin, dass die Regel der Erschöpfung des innerstaatlichen Rechtswegs nach Artikel 35 Abs. 1 der Konvention die Beschwerdeführer verpflichtet, zunächst von den ihnen nach ihrer innerstaatlichen Rechtsordnung zur Verfügung stehenden Rechtsmitteln Gebrauch zu machen, die hinreichend geeignet sind, der behaupteten Verletzung abzuhelfen (vgl. Rechtssachen Airey ./. Irland, 9. Oktober 1979, Randnr. 19, Serie A Band 32; Iatridis ./. Griechenland [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 31107/96, Randnr. 47, EGMR 1999-II; und Ilhan ./. Türkei [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 22277/93, Randnr. 58, EGMR 2000-VII).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EKMR, 22.05.1995 - 22277/93   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1995,27532
EKMR, 22.05.1995 - 22277/93 (https://dejure.org/1995,27532)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 22.05.1995 - 22277/93 (https://dejure.org/1995,27532)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 22. Mai 1995 - 22277/93 (https://dejure.org/1995,27532)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1995,27532) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

 
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)Zitiert selbst (2)

  • EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79
    Auszug aus EKMR, 22.05.1995 - 22277/93
    Baljet and Van den Brink judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p.
  • EKMR, 11.05.1989 - 14116/88
    Auszug aus EKMR, 22.05.1995 - 22277/93
    14116/88 and 14117/88, Sargin and Yagci v.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EKMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht