Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FADIME AND TURAN KARABULUT v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 23872/04

  In response to the Government's argument concerning the costs and expenses relating to the proceedings at the national level, the Court reiterates that, if it finds that there has been a violation of the Convention, it may award the applicant the costs and expenses incurred before the national courts for the prevention or redress of the violation (see Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 56, ECHR 2002-III, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 37703/97

  Verantwortung des Staates für Mord durch beurlaubte Gefangene; Verpflichtung des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 23872/04

  The Court reiterates at this juncture that Article 2 imposes a duty on the State to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person, backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and punishment of breaches of such provisions (see Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 115, Reports 1998-VIII; Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, §§ 67 and 89, ECHR 2002-VIII; and Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V).
• LG Bonn, 25.09.2008 - 27 Qs 5/08

  Rechtmäßigkeit einer Durchsuchung von Geschäftsräumen aufgrund des Verdachts …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 23872/04

  27/08/2010.

• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 23872/04

  Compliance with the State's positive obligations under Article 2 requires the domestic legal system to demonstrate its capacity to enforce criminal law against those who have unlawfully taken the life of another (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 160, ECHR 2005-VII).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 47916/99

  MENSON contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 23872/04

  The Court reiterates at this juncture that Article 2 imposes a duty on the State to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person, backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and punishment of breaches of such provisions (see Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 115, Reports 1998-VIII; Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, §§ 67 and 89, ECHR 2002-VIII; and Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 26129/95

  TANLI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 23872/04

  While the Court does not doubt that the killing of their daughter caused the applicants profound suffering, it nevertheless finds no basis for finding a violation of Article 3 in this context (see, a contrario, disappearance cases; Tanlı v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 159, ECHR 2001-III (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 43326/05

  LEONIDIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 23872/04

  Confining the authorities' reaction to incidents of deprivations of life to the mere payment of compensation would also make it possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity, and the general legal prohibitions on killing, despite their fundamental importance, would be ineffective in practice (Leonidis v. Greece, no. 43326/05, § 46, 8 January 2009).
• EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 3743/06

  UCA c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 23872/04

  Referring to the decision on inadmissibility in the case of Uca v. Turkey (no. 3743/06, 29 April 2008) the Government further submitted that the applicants could have brought an administrative action and claimed compensation from the State for the killing of their daughter.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 6884/11

  Polizeigewalt bei G8 in Genua 2001: Italien verurteilt

  En ce qui concerne le deuxième volet de l'exception de non-épuisement des voies de recours internes, tiré du fait que le requérant n'a pas introduit une procédure civile ultérieure en dommages-intérêts (paragraphe 139 ci-dessus), la Cour rappelle qu'elle a rejeté à maintes reprises des exceptions similaires, après avoir observé que la procédure en dommages-intérêts ne visait pas la punition des responsables des actes contraires aux articles 2 ou 3 de la Convention et en réaffirmant que, pour des violations de ce type, la réaction des autorités ne peut se limiter au dédommagement de la victime (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Yaşa c. Turquie, 2 septembre 1998, §§ 70-74, Recueil 1998-VI, Oğur c. Turquie [GC], no 21594/93, §§ 66-67, CEDH 1999-III, Issaïeva et autres c. Russie, nos 57947/00, 57948/00 et 57949/00, §§ 146-149, 24 février 2005, Estamirov et autres c. Russie, no 60272/00, §§ 76-77, 12 octobre 2006, Beganović c. Croatie, no 46423/06, §§ 54-57, 25 juin 2009, et Fadime et Turan Karabulut c. Turquie, no 23872/04, §§ 13-15, 27 mai 2010).
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 58559/09

  [ENG]

  As to the exception invoked by the Government about their pending civil action, they relied on the line of jurisprudence represented by Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria (no. 7888/03, §§ 55-56, 20 December 2007; Beganovic v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, § 56, ECHR 2009...; Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, §§ 31-48, 27 May 2010; Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, § 121, 29 July 2010; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 119, ECHR 2010...; and Darraj v. France, no. 34588/07, §§ 22-53, 4 November 2010).

  On one reading of this case-law, it requires that, for the Court to refrain from considering the substantive complaint in the international proceedings brought before it, there must be a domestic procedure capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the perpetrator, not that that procedure must have in fact have done so (see, for example, the language used in Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, 27 May 2010, § 39; and Ablyazov v. Russia, no. 22867/05, 30 October 2012, § 54).

• EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 25091/07

  [FRE]

  Otherwise, the States" duty to carry out an effective investigation would lose much of its meaning, and the rights enshrined in the above-mentioned provisions would be ineffective in practice (see Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 61, 20 December 2007; Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, § 46, 27 May 2010; and Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 73-76, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).

• EGMR, 14.03.2019 - 30015/96

  A. ET AUTRES CONTRE LA TURQUIE ET 204 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  23872/04.
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 23016/04

  [ENG]

  As regards the Government's objection based on the applicants" failure to seek compensation, the Court points out that it has already examined and rejected the Government's reliance on the above-mentioned Uca decision in two other cases which also concerned the issue of the right to life (see, mutatis mutandis, Gasyak and Others v. Turkey, no. 27872/03, §§ 66-72, 13 October 2009, and Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, § 38, 27 May 2010).
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 21099/06

  [FRE]

  En revanche, s'agissant d'un grief tiré de l'article 2 de la Convention, la Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà examiné et rejeté une exception d'irrecevabilité pour non-épuisement des voies de recours internes tirée du fait qu'un requérant n'avait pas saisi les autorités nationales compétentes d'une demande d'indemnisation sur le fondement de la loi no 5233 (Gasyak et autres, précité, §§ 66-72, et Fadime et Turan Karabulut c. Turquie, no 23872/04, § 38, 27 mai 2010).
• EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 63543/09

  DURDAJ AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  Rn. 217 As regards the sentencing, the Court has previously found a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention in cases where State officials had caused death by acts of police brutality and where the execution of sentences imposed on them had been suspended (see Ali and Ayşe Duran, cited above, §§ 70-72; Bektaş and Özalp, cited above, § 50; Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, § 47, 27 May 2010; and Külah and Koyuncu v. Turkey, no. 24827/05, § 60, 23 April 2013); or the sentence was enforced with a significant delay (see Kitanovska Stanojkovic and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 2319/14, §§ 31-33, 13 October 2016); or they were not punished owing to the punishment becoming time-barred (see Przemyk v. Poland, no. 22426/11, § 71, 17 September 2013, and Nina Kutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 25114/11, § 150, 18 July 2017); or the sentence was too lenient (see Przemyk, cited above, § 72, where a police officer was initially sentenced to four years' imprisonment for charges of battery resulting in death, and then the sentence was reduced to two years' imprisonment, and Yeter v. Turkey, no. 33750/03, § 68, 13 January 2009, where a police officer was initially sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for charges of torture resulting in death, and then the sentence was reduced to four years and two months' imprisonment and he served only nineteen days of it); or where the police officers who committed murder were not banned from public service (see Vazagashvili and Shanava, cited above, § 92, where two police officers convicted for aggravated murder of the applicant's son were sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment but could potentially join the law-enforcement system of the respondent State anew after they have served their prison sentences); or where the trial court suspended the pronouncement of the judgment for the offence of unlawful killing on the ground that it had not been intentional (see, for example, Kasap and Others v. Turkey, no. 8656/10, § 60, 14 January 2014, and Hasan Köse v. Turkey, no. 15014/11, § 37, 18 December 2018).
• EGMR, 28.04.2015 - 54999/10

  MILIC ET NIKEZIC c. MONTÉNÉGRO

  Thus, in cases where the execution of the perpetrators" prison sentences was suspended (see Okkali v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 39, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, § 30, 27 May 2010; Nikolova and Velichkova, cited above, § 24, and Külah and Koyuncu v. Turkey, no. 24827/05, § 18, 23 April 2013); where the criminal trial became time-barred on account of the expiry of the statute of limitations after it had been established that the defendants had carried out the acts (Ugur v. Turkey, no. 37308/05, § 70, 13 January 2015); or where pronouncement of the judgment was suspended (Eski v. Turkey, no. 8354/04, § 18, 5 June 2012 and Kasap and Others v. Turkey, no. 8656/10, § 37, 14 January 2014), the Court has found substantive violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention on account of the impunity granted to those perpetrators.
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 33898/11

  FINDIK v. TURKEY AND OMER V. TURKEY

  As to whether the compensation proceedings, instigated by the applicants in 2007 and concluded less than six months before they applied to the Court (see paragraph 7 above), have any bearing on the issue of the applicants" compliance with the six-month rule, the Court points out that it has already examined the compensation procedure in question in a number of its judgments in cases which also concerned the issue of the right to life (see, mutatis mutandis, Gasyak and Others v. Turkey, no. 27872/03, §§ 66-72, 13 October 2009, and Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, § 38, 27 May 2010).
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 8656/10

  KASAP AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court's examination of the applicants" complaint will therefore be limited to ascertaining whether or not the national authorities afforded appropriate and sufficient redress for the violation (see Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, § 43, 27 May 2010 and Külah and Koyuncu v. Turkey, no. 24827/05, § 38, 23 April 2013) and whether they have complied with their substantive and procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 37308/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 24604/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 61030/08

  B.V. c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 24827/05

  [ENG]