Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AKDENIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 with State's liability for death of eleven missing persons Violation of Art. 2 with regard to failure to conduct an effective investigation Violation of Art. 3 with regard to the missing persons No violation of Art. 3 with regard to the ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 03.04.1995 - 23954/94
• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94

  Whether the failure on the part of the authorities to provide a plausible explanation as to a detainee's fate, in the absence of a body, might also raise issues under Article 2 of the Convention depends on all the circumstances of the case, and in particular on the existence of sufficient circumstantial evidence, based on concrete elements, from which it may be concluded to the requisite standard of proof that the detainee must be presumed to have died in custody (see Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, ECHR 1999-IV, § 85; Ertak v. Turkey no. 20764/92 (Sect. 1) ECHR 2000-V, § 131, and Timurtas v. Turkey no. 23531/94 (Sect. 1) ECHR 2000-VI, §§ 82-86).

  It is especially in respect of the latter that a relative may claim directly to be a victim of the authorities" conduct (see Cakici v. Turkey [GC] no. 23657/94, §§ 98-99, ECHR 1999-IV, Timurtas v. Turkey, no 23531/94, §§ 95-98 ECHR 2000-VI, and Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94 (Sect. 1) (bil.), ECHR 2000-XI, §§ 79-80).

• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94

  Whether the failure on the part of the authorities to provide a plausible explanation as to a detainee's fate, in the absence of a body, might also raise issues under Article 2 of the Convention depends on all the circumstances of the case, and in particular on the existence of sufficient circumstantial evidence, based on concrete elements, from which it may be concluded to the requisite standard of proof that the detainee must be presumed to have died in custody (see Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, ECHR 1999-IV, § 85; Ertak v. Turkey no. 20764/92 (Sect. 1) ECHR 2000-V, § 131, and Timurtas v. Turkey no. 23531/94 (Sect. 1) ECHR 2000-VI, §§ 82-86).

  It is especially in respect of the latter that a relative may claim directly to be a victim of the authorities" conduct (see Cakici v. Turkey [GC] no. 23657/94, §§ 98-99, ECHR 1999-IV, Timurtas v. Turkey, no 23531/94, §§ 95-98 ECHR 2000-VI, and Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94 (Sect. 1) (bil.), ECHR 2000-XI, §§ 79-80).

• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94

  As regards the 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, 06.11.1980 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1) (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94

  The question to be decided in such cases is the level of just satisfaction, in respect of either past and future pecuniary loss, which it is necessary to award to an applicant, the matter to be determined by the Court at its discretion, having regard to what is equitable (Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom judgment (former Article 50) of 6 November 1989, Series A no. 38, p. 9, § 15; Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. the United Kingdom (Article 41), nos.
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94

  Where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which an issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see the Tomasi v. France judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, §§ 108-111; the Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 34, and the Selmouni v. France [GC] no. 25803/94, ECHR 1999-V, § 87).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93

  KILIÇ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94

  It is recalled that the Court has held in two recent judgments that defects undermining the effectiveness of criminal law protection in the south-east region during the period relevant also to this case permitted or fostered a lack of accountability of members of the security forces for their actions (see Kılıç v. Turkey no. 22492/93 (Sect. 1), ECHR 2000-III, § 75, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey no. 22535/93, (Sect. 1) ECHR 2000-III, § 98).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94

  It is recalled that the Court has held in two recent judgments that defects undermining the effectiveness of criminal law protection in the south-east region during the period relevant also to this case permitted or fostered a lack of accountability of members of the security forces for their actions (see Kılıç v. Turkey no. 22492/93 (Sect. 1), ECHR 2000-III, § 75, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey no. 22535/93, (Sect. 1) ECHR 2000-III, § 98).
• EGMR, 09.05.2000 - 20764/92

  ERTAK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94

  Whether the failure on the part of the authorities to provide a plausible explanation as to a detainee's fate, in the absence of a body, might also raise issues under Article 2 of the Convention depends on all the circumstances of the case, and in particular on the existence of sufficient circumstantial evidence, based on concrete elements, from which it may be concluded to the requisite standard of proof that the detainee must be presumed to have died in custody (see Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, ECHR 1999-IV, § 85; Ertak v. Turkey no. 20764/92 (Sect. 1) ECHR 2000-V, § 131, and Timurtas v. Turkey no. 23531/94 (Sect. 1) ECHR 2000-VI, §§ 82-86).
• EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 24396/94

  TAS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94

  It is especially in respect of the latter that a relative may claim directly to be a victim of the authorities" conduct (see Cakici v. Turkey [GC] no. 23657/94, §§ 98-99, ECHR 1999-IV, Timurtas v. Turkey, no 23531/94, §§ 95-98 ECHR 2000-VI, and Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94 (Sect. 1) (bil.), ECHR 2000-XI, §§ 79-80).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94

  Where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which an issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see the Tomasi v. France judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, §§ 108-111; the Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 34, and the Selmouni v. France [GC] no. 25803/94, ECHR 1999-V, § 87).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 60654/00

  SYSSOYEVA ET AUTRES c. LETTONIE

  Il est vrai que, dans plusieurs affaires où les autorités publiques avaient interrogé les requérants au sujet de leurs requêtes, la Cour a constaté de ce fait un manquement aux obligations découlant de l'article 34 (ou de l'ancien article 25 § 1) de la Convention (voir les arrêts précités Akdivar et autres, p. 1219, § 105 ; Kurt, pp. 1192-1193, § 160, Tanrıkulu, § 130 ; Orhan, § 407, ainsi que Bilgin c. Turquie, no 23819/94, § 133, 16 novembre 2000, Dulas c. Turquie, no 25801/94, § 79, 30 janvier 2001, et Akdeniz et autres c. Turquie, no 23954/94, § 118, 31 mai 2001).
• EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 30078/06

  Konstantin Markin ./. Russland

  The Court has emphasised on several occasions that it was in principle not appropriate for the authorities of a respondent State to enter into direct contact with an applicant in connection with his case before the Court (see Ryabov v. Russia, cited above, §§ 59-65; Fedotova, cited above, § 51; Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, §§ 118-121, 31 May 2001; Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, §§ 169-171, Reports 1998-VIII; and Ergi v. Turkey, 28 July 1998, § 105, Reports 1998-IV).
• EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 16064/90

  VARNAVA ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  They argued that the same held true in this case, in particular as there was no reason why the first applicants in this case were not presumed to be dead as in other disappearance cases (e.g. Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, 31 May 2001).

  The inter-State case concerned the phenomenon of disappearances, which, although linked to a specific point of time when the missing person was last seen and the surrounding circumstances, may be distinguished from conventional cases of use of lethal force or unlawful killings which are dealt with under Article 2. In the latter cases, the fate of the victim is known; the former are characterised by an ongoing situation of uncertainty and, not infrequently, callous inaction, obfuscation and concealment (see, amongst many examples, Kurt v. Turkey, judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, §§ 127-128, Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 84, 97, ECHR 2000-VI § 84, 97, Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, § 93, 31 May 2001, Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, §§ 80, 90, 14 November 2000; Imakeyeva v. Russia, §§ 150 165, 9 November 2006, Baysayeva v. Russia, §§ 119, 127 April 2007).

  While it may be noted that in the context of the individual cases arising out of events in south-east Turkey and the conflict in the Chechen Republic, where there were, at the relevant times, numerous reported instances of forced disappearances, individual applicants have nonetheless been required to give an evidential basis for finding that their relatives were taken into some form of custody by agents of the State (see e.g. Kurt v. Turkey, judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, § 99, Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, § 84, 31 May 2001, Sarli v. Turkey, 24490/94, 22 May 2001; Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 141, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)), the Court considers that the situation in the present case may be distinguished.

 
• EGMR, 18.09.2009 - 16064/90

  VARNAVA ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  The burden of proof may then be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21896/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, §§ 85-89, 31 May 2000); see also cases short of custody, where it is possible to establish that an individual entered a place under those authorities' control and has not been seen since, in which circumstances, the onus is on the Government to provide a plausible explanation of what happened on the premises and to show that the person concerned was not detained by the authorities, but left the premises without subsequently being deprived of his or her liberty (e.g. Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005-VIII; Yusupova and Zaurbekov v. Russia, no. 22057/02, §§ 50-55, 9 October 2008).
• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 48804/99

  OSMANOGLU c. TURQUIE

  However, relying on the Court's case-law concerning similar allegations (in particular, Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, § 88, 31 May 2001), the applicant submitted that there was a reasonable presumption of death attributable to the respondent Government which arose from the following factors:.

  In order to reach such a conclusion the Court seeks to establish: (1) that the person was deprived of liberty in life-threatening circumstances; (2) that this deprivation was effected by Government agents; (3) that there has been a lack of information or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty (see, for example, Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 85, ECHR 2000-VI; Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, ECHR 2000-V; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, ECHR 2005-VIII; and Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, 31 May 2001).

• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 55523/00

  ANGELOVA AND ILIEV v. BULGARIA

  Elle a également déjà alloué des sommes en ce qui concerne le défunt, après avoir constaté qu'il y avait eu une détention arbitraire ou des actes de torture avant la disparition ou le décès, sommes qui devaient être détenues pour le compte des héritiers du défunt (voir, parmi d'autres, Çakıcı [GC], précité, § 130, et Akdeniz et autres c. Turquie, no 23954/94, § 133, 31 mai 2001).
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06

  ASLAKHANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Thus, the Court has dealt with a "pattern of enforced disappearances" occurring principally between 1992 and 1996 in South-Eastern Turkey (see, among others, OsmanoÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, 24 January 2008; Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, 31 May 2005; Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004-II (extracts); Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, 31 May 2001; Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, 14 November 2000; Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, ECHR 2000-VI; Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, ECHR 2000-V; and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 19841/06

  BAGDONAVICIUS ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  La Cour a souligné à maintes reprises qu'il n'est en principe guère approprié que les autorités d'un État défendeur entrent en contact direct avec un requérant au sujet de l'affaire dont celui-ci l'a saisie (Riabov c. Russie, no 3896/04, §§ 59-65, 31 janvier 2008, Akdeniz et autres c. Turquie, no 23954/94, §§ 118-121, 31 mai 2001, Assenov et autres c. Bulgarie, 28 octobre 1998, §§ 169-171, Recueil 1998-VIII, et Ergi c. Turquie, 28 juillet 1998, § 105, Recueil 1998-IV).
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 23016/04

  ER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  In its examination of a number of those disappearances the Court reached the conclusion that the disappearance of a person in south-east Turkey at the relevant time could be regarded as life-threatening (see, among other authorities, OsmanoÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, 24 January 2008; Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, 31 May 2005; Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004-II (extracts); Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, 31 May 2001; Çiçek, cited above; Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, 14 November 2000; Timurtas, cited above; Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, ECHR 2000-V; and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 25760/94

  IPEK c. TURQUIE

  Les délégués n'ignoraient pas que le général Yavuz Ertürk avait témoigné dans une affaire antérieure devant les délégués de la Commission au sujet de la conduite d'une importante opération militaire dans la région de Kulp-Lice-Mus en octobre 1993 (Akdeniz et autres c. Turquie, no 23954/94, 31 mai 2001).
• EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 38187/97

  ADALI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03

  MERYEM ÇELIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 45801/19

  TUNÇ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 41964/98

  CENNET AYHAN AND MEHMET SALIH AYHAN v. TURKEY