Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KILIÇ c. TURQUIE
Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 38, Art. 41 MRK
Violation de l'Art. 2 pour manque à protéger la vie Violation de l'art. 2 pour absence d'enquête effective Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 10 Violation de l'art. 13 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 14 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KILIÇ v. TURKEY
Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 38, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 2 in respect of failure to protect life Violation of Art. 2 in respect of ineffective investigation Not necessary to examine Art. 10 Violation of Art. 13 Not necessary to examine Art. 14 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - ...
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 09.01.1995 - 22492/93
- EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93
Wird zitiert von ... (68) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94
TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93
While the Court is not bound by the Commission's findings of fact and remains free to make its own assessment in the light of all the material before it, it is only in exceptional circumstances that it will exercise its powers in this area (see, among other authorities, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-IV).It is for that reason that the Court has up till now awarded compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage for individual violations only to very close relatives such as the surviving spouse or children of the deceased person or, exceptionally, when it has appeared equitable, the father or mother if an express claim has been made (see paragraph 105 of the judgment in the instant case and Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 138, ECHR 1999-IV).
- EGMR, 05.10.1999 - 33677/96
Umfang der staatlichen Ermittlungspflicht bei Verursachung des Todes eines …
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93
However, the Court's inadmissibility decision of 5 October 1999 in Grams v. Germany ((dec.), no. 33677/96, ECHR 1999-VII) is instructive on the point. - EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94
ÇAKICI v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93
Secondly, the cases examined by the Convention organs concerning the region at this time have produced a series of findings of failure by the authorities to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by the security forces, both in the context of the procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention and the requirement for effective remedies imposed by Article 13 (see, concerning Article 2, the Kaya v. Turkey judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, pp. 324-26, §§ 86-92; the Ergi v. Turkey judgment of 28 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, pp. 1778-79, §§ 82-85; the Yasa judgment cited above, pp. 2454-57, §§ 98-108; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-IV; and Tanrıkulu cited above, §§ 101-11; concerning Article 13, see the judgments cited above and the Aksoy v. Turkey judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, pp. 2286-87, §§ 95-100; the Aydın v. Turkey judgment of 25 September 1997, Reports 1997-VI, pp. 1895-98, §§ 103-09; the Mentes and Others v. Turkey judgment of 28 November 1997, Reports 1997-VIII, pp. 2715-16, §§ 89-92; the Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey judgment of 24 April 1998, Reports 1998-II, pp. 912-14, §§ 93-98; the Kurt v. Turkey judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, pp. 1188-90, §§ 135-42; and the Tekin v. Turkey judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, pp. 1519-20, §§ 62-69). - EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93
As it has held in previous cases, however, that does not preclude the complaint in relation to Article 2 from being an "arguable" one for the purposes of Article 13 (see the Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52, and the Kaya and Yasa judgments cited above, pp. 330-31, § 107, and p. 2442, § 113, respectively). - EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93
The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention "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, mutatis mutandis, the McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 49, § 161, and the Kaya judgment cited above, p. 329, § 105).
- EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 48939/99
ÖNERYILDIZ c. TURQUIE
The positive obligation to take all appropriate steps to safeguard life for the purposes of Article 2 (see paragraph 71 above) entails above all a primary duty on the State to put in place a legislative and administrative framework designed to provide effective deterrence against threats to the right to life (see, for example, mutatis mutandis, Osman, cited above, p. 3159, § 115; Paul and Audrey Edwards, cited above, § 54; Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 91, ECHR 2000-VII; Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 62, ECHR 2000-III; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 85, ECHR 2000-III). - EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 15339/02
BUDAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
This positive obligation entails above all a primary duty on the State to put in place a legislative and administrative framework designed to provide effective deterrence against threats to the right to life (see, for example, mutatis mutandis, Osman v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3159, § 115; Paul and Audrey Edwards, cited above, § 54; Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 91, ECHR 2000-VII; Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 62, ECHR 2000-III; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 85, ECHR 2000-III). - EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99
MAKARATZIS c. GRECE
The first sentence of Article 2 § 1 enjoins the State not only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps within its internal legal order to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (see Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 62, ECHR 2000-III).
- EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 2668/07
DINK c. TURQUIE
Cette disposition comporte aussi, dans certaines circonstances définies, l'obligation positive pour les Etats de prendre préventivement des mesures d'ordre pratique pour protéger l'individu dont la vie est menacée par les agissements criminels d'autrui (Osman c. Royaume-Uni, 28 octobre 1998, § 115, Recueil 1998-VIII, Mahmut Kaya c. Turquie, no 22535/93, § 85, CEDH 2000-III, Kiliç c. Turquie, no 22492/93, § 62, CEDH 2000-III, et Opuz c. Turquie, no 33401/02, § 128, CEDH 2009-...). - EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96
CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE
Even if the Convention does not as such guarantee a right to have criminal proceedings instituted against third parties, the Court has said on a number of occasions that the effective judicial system required by Article 2 may, and under certain circumstances must, include recourse to the criminal law (see, among other authorities, Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 62, ECHR 2000-III, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 85, ECHR 2000-III). - EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 41237/14
Italien muss Opfer von häuslicher Gewalt entschädigen
Aussi, dans certaines circonstances bien définies, l'article 2 peut mettre à la charge des autorités l'obligation positive d'adopter préalablement des mesures d'ordre pratique pour protéger l'individu dont la vie est menacée par les agissements criminels d'autrui (Osman c. Royaume-Uni, 28 octobre 1998, § 115, Recueil 1998-VIII ; Branko Tomasic et autres c. Croatie, no 46598/06, § 50, 15 janvier 2009, et Opuz, précité § 128; Mahmut Kaya c. Turquie, no 22535/93, § 85, CEDH 2000-III, Kiliç c. Turquie, no 22492/93, § 62, CEDH 2000-III). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93
ILHAN c. TURQUIE
Le requérant invoque à cet égard les arrêts rendus le 28 mars 2000 dans les affaires Mahmut Kaya c. Turquie et Kılıç c. Turquie (no 22535/93, CEDH 2000-III, et no 22492/93, CEDH 2000-III). - EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 22947/93
AKKOC v. TURKEY
The applicant referred to the Commission's finding, endorsed by the Court in two earlier cases (Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, ECHR 2000-III, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, ECHR 2000-III), that the legal structures in the south-east of Turkey during 1993 operated in such a manner that security-force personnel and others acting under their control or with their acquiescence were often unaccountable.In the cases of Kılıç v. Turkey (no. 22492/93, ECHR 2000-III) and Kaya v. Turkey (no. 22535/93, ECHR 2000-III), the applicants claimed GBP 30, 000 + GBP 40, 000 + GBP 2, 500 (without specifying the nature of the damage).
- EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 34056/02
GONGADZE c. UKRAINE
For a positive obligation to arise, it must be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual or individuals from the criminal acts of a third party, and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, §§ 62-63, ECHR 2000-III). - EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 7678/09
VAN COLLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Nothing on the facts compared to the increased risk to life of political journalists considered in Kiliç v. Turkey (no. 22492/93, ECHR 2000-III).Moreover, Giles Van Colle was not especially vulnerable in the Kiliç v. Turkey sense (no. 22492/93, ECHR 2000-III) and nothing in his circumstances made him more likely to be at risk than the thousands of others giving evidence in criminal trials.
- EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 29109/03
CESIM YILDIRIM ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 57049/00
YÜKSEL ERDOGAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 26589/06
SAKINE EPÖZDEMIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 34592/97
AGDAS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94
AVSAR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94
TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07
MUCIBABIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12
BLJAKAJ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 48939/99
ÖNERYILDIZ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 25704/94
CICEK v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 45801/19
TUNÇ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 40073/98
IHSAN BILGIN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 27.10.2009 - 45653/99
ANDREOU v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 25354/94
NURAY SEN v. TURKEY (No. 2)
- EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 55354/11
CIVEK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 25.08.2009 - 23458/02
GIULIANI ET GAGGIO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 39541/98
DÖLEK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 35962/97
GÖMI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 36088/97
ACAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10
HUSEYNOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 69546/12
CEVRIOGLU v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 14326/11
BANEL v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 25165/94
AKDENIZ v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94
AKDENIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 31675/04
CODARCEA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 51210/99
NEHYET GÜNAY ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 02.04.2020 - 8938/07
KUKHALASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 36150/04
DAMAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 9207/03
EVRIM ÖKTEM c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 26.02.2008 - 43443/98
MANSUROGLU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 21.02.2008 - 57084/00
USTA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 27850/03
KARAGIANNOPOULOS c. GRECE
- EGMR, 25.04.2006 - 19807/92
ERDOGAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 50739/99
PERK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 36749/97
HAMIYET KAPLAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 25659/94
I. BILGIN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 20620/10
ERCAN BOZKURT v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 15028/09
SELAHATTIN DEMIRTAS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 30304/02
HALIS AKIN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 45902/99
KASA v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 12458/03
SUAT ÜNLÜ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 24.07.2007 - 36672/97
KURNAZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 21449/04
CELNIKU c. GRECE
- EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 68188/01
DIRIL c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 21.02.2006 - 57778/00
AYDIN EREN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 10096/17
KEREMOGLU ET AUTRES c. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 39438/05
BINISAN v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 16838/08
BABAKIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 22932/02
ISMAIL ALTUN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 22.03.2005 - 30951/96
AY c. TURQUIE
- EGMR - 27385/20 (anhängig)
PITEK c. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 34215/11
KOLACZYK AND KWIATKOWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 12.06.2007 - 75632/01
EKREM c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 41335/98
KAMER DEMIR ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 45784/99
SULTAN KARABULUT c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 31866/96
SATIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 28226/02
GÜLEN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 5722/04
KARCHEN ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
Rechtsprechung
EKMR, 09.01.1995 - 22492/93 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 09.01.1995 - 22492/93
- EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 07.08.1996 - 19092/91
YAGIZ c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.01.1995 - 22492/93
The Commission also considers that in the circumstances of this case the applicant was not required to pursue any legal remedy in addition to the public prosecutor's inquiry (see eg. No. 19092/91, Yagiz v. Turkey, Dec. 11.10.93, to be published in D.R.75). - EuGH, 28.05.1975 - 44/75
Könecke / Kommission
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.01.1995 - 22492/93
These included 6 journalists from the Özgür Gündem: Musa Anter killed in 1992; Hafiz Akdemir who was shot on 8 June 1992 in Diyarbakir, Yahya Orhan who was shot and killed in the street in Gerçus near Batman on 31 July 1992, Hüseyin Deniz shot on 9 August 1992 in Ceylanpinar and died from injuries, Kemal Kiliç killed on 18 February 1993 and Ferhat Tepe, kidnapped by persons unknown and his body found on 3 August 1993 (Helsinki Watch "Free Expression in Turkey 1993: Killings, Convictions, Confiscations", August 1993, Vol. 5 Issue 17 and see also Amnesty International report "Turkey: walls of glass" November 1992, AI Index Eur 44/75/92). - EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79
DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.01.1995 - 22492/93
It is furthermore established that the burden of proving the existence of available and sufficient domestic remedies lies upon the State invoking the rule (cf. Eur. Court H.R., De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 18, para. 36, and Nos. 14116/88 and 14117/88, Sargin and Yagci v. Turkey, Dec. 11.05.89, D.R. 61 p. 250, 262). - EKMR, 11.05.1989 - 14116/88
SARGIN ; YAGCI contre la TURQUIE
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.01.1995 - 22492/93
It is furthermore established that the burden of proving the existence of available and sufficient domestic remedies lies upon the State invoking the rule (cf. Eur. Court H.R., De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 18, para. 36, and Nos. 14116/88 and 14117/88, Sargin and Yagci v. Turkey, Dec. 11.05.89, D.R. 61 p. 250, 262).