Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ELÇI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 15, Art. 15 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection rejected (exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 8 Not necessary to examine P1-1 No violation of Art. 34 (former Art. 25) Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 02.12.1996 - 23145/93
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 23145/93, 25091/94

Wird zitiert von ... (38)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 23145/93

  The Court recalls in this regard that, in respect of persons deprived of their liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by their own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see the Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, p. 26, § 38, the Tekin v. Turkey judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, § 53, and the Selmouni v. France judgment cited above, § 99).

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, as in the present case, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis, the Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 32, and Avşar v. Turkey, cited above, § 283).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 23145/93

  However, the Assenov and Others case was decided before the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the Court in Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], no.22277/93, ECHR 2000-VII, p.267, in which the Court voiced certain doubts as to the analogy drawn in the earlier authority between the provisions of Article 2 and those of Article 3. The Court pointed out that, while the obligation to provide an effective investigation into the deaths caused by, inter alios, the security forces had been held to be implied into Article 2 in order to ensure that the rights guaranteed by that Article were not theoretical or illusory but practical and effective, the provisions of Article 2 included the requirement that the right to life be "protected by law".
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 23145/93

  The Court is unable to take cognisance of the applicants' newly specified complaint under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention as it has been lodged out of time (Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention; cf. judgments in Cardot v. France, Series A no. 200 of 19 March 1991, the operative part, and Soc v. Croatia, no. 47863, § 88, of 9 May 2003).

• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 22947/93

  AKKOC v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 23145/93

  22947/93 and 22948/93, §§ 37-40, ECHR 2000-X.
• EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 21689/93

  AHMET ÖZKAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 23145/93

  In particular, Mr Elçi averred that papers concerning two applications to the Commission (Özkan and 31 others v. Turkey, application no. 21689/93, and Ismail Ertak v. Turkey, application no. 2764/92) were never returned to him.
• EGMR, 17.06.2003 - 41478/98

  NURAY SEN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 23145/93

  The Government have not shown how the applicants' detention without adequate authorisation could have been strictly required by the exigencies of the situation envisaged by Article 15 § 1 of the Convention (cf. mutatis mutandis Şen v. Turkey, no. 41478/98, §§ 22-29, judgment of 17 June 2003).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 23145/93

  However, it requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be consistent with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect individuals from arbitrariness (see, in particular, the Winterwerp v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, pp. 17-18 and 19-20, §§ 39 and 45, and the van der Leer v. the Netherlands judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 170, p. 12, § 22).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 23145/93

  The Court refers below to the submissions of the parties regarding the pertinent domestic law in force at the relevant time, especially their translations of various texts, as well as to the various summaries of domestic law set out in previous jugments (see e.g. the judgment dated 27 June 2000 in the case of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §§ 60-68, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 23145/93

  The Court further recalls its case-law that, in assessing evidence in a claim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, it adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (Avşar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001).
• EGMR, 29.03.1990 - 11454/85

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 23145/93

  However, it requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be consistent with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect individuals from arbitrariness (see, in particular, the Winterwerp v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, pp. 17-18 and 19-20, §§ 39 and 45, and the van der Leer v. the Netherlands judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 170, p. 12, § 22).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 21689/93

  AHMET ÖZKAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Such authority may be given orally and may exceptionally be given after the event, but it will thereafter be recorded in writing (see Elçi and Others v. Turkey, nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, § 679, 13 November 2003).

  The Court further notes that the search of Mr Elçi's offices on 23 November 1993 and subsequent events formed the subject-matter of application no. 23145/93 brought by Tahir Elçi against Turkey in which the Court examined, inter alia, Mr Elçi's claim that his client files concerning his Commission work were never returned to him.

• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 38455/06

  [FRE]

  Dans l'affaire Elci et autres c. Turquie (requêtes nos 23145/93 et 25091/94, 13 novembre 2003), la Cour a constaté que l'on avait bandé les yeux des requérants « au moins à des moments cruciaux, comme lors des interrogatoires et des confrontations avec M. Güven ".
• EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA

  Therefore the searching of lawyers" premises should be subject to especially strict scrutiny (see Elci and Others v. Turkey, nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, § 669, 13 November 2003).

• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 30443/03

  H. L. gegen Deutschland

  Der Gerichtshof weist darauf hin, dass Art. 35 Abs. 1 der Konvention zwar verhältnismäßig flexibel und ohne übermäßigen Formalismus anzuwenden ist, normalerweise aber voraussetzt, dass die Rügen, mit denen später der Gerichtshof befasst werden soll, zumindest ihrem wesentlichen Inhalt nach Gegenstand der Anrufung der zuständigen innerstaatlichen Gerichte waren und dass die in den innerstaatlichen Bestimmungen vorgesehenen Formerfordernisse und Fristen beachtet wurden (siehe u.a. Cardot ./. Frankreich , Urteil vom 19. März 1991, Serie A Band 200, S. 18, Rdnr. 34, Elçi u.a. ./. Türkei , Individualbeschwerden Nr. 23145/93 und 25091/94, Rdnr. 604, 13.
• EGMR, 12.01.2006 - 38282/97

  Menschenrechte: Ausgestaltung und Dauer eines Sorgerechts- und Umgangsverfahren

  Normalerweise ist es erforderlich, dass auch die Rügen, mit denen später der Gerichtshof befasst werden soll, zumindest ihrem wesentlichen Inhalt nach Gegenstand der Anrufungen dieser Gerichte waren und dass die in den innerstaatlichen Bestimmungen vorgesehenen formalen Anforderungen und zeitlichen Fristen beachtet wurden (siehe unter anderem Rechtssachen Cardot ./. Frankreich , Urteil vom 19. März 1991, Serie A, Bd. 200, S. 18, Nr. 34; Elçi u. a. . /. Türkei , Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 23145/93 and 25091/94, Nr. 604, 13.
• EGMR, 28.07.2020 - 53028/14

  MACOVEI c. ROUMANIE

  23145/93 and 25091/94, § 714, 13 November 2003), and even though the applicant has not shown whether or not she would struggle to pay the amounts required of her in order to comply with the last-instance court's judgment, the Court is of the view that, under the circumstances, the sanction imposed was capable of having a dissuasive effect on the exercise of her right to freedom of expression (see, for instance, Lombardo and Others, cited above, § 61; and Ghiulfer Predescu v. Romania, no. 29751/09, § 61, 27 June 2017).
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 72250/01

  LOPATA v. RUSSIA

  It is particularly surprising that although the expert mentioned the applicant's "complaints about pain in the left ear", he did not consider it necessary to question the applicant about the symptoms and the origin of his condition, or to examine his ear and to write down the applicant's explanations and his own findings (see Akkoç, ibid.; Pishchalnikov, cited above, § 59; compare Elci and Others v. Turkey, nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, § 642, 13 November 2003).
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 58478/00

  RUPA c. ROUMANIE (N° 1)

  Dans ces conditions, eu égard aux éléments de preuve soumis à son appréciation, la Cour estime les faits ne sont pas suffisamment établis pour lui permettre de conclure que les autorités de l'État défendeur ont intimidé ou harcelé le requérant dans des circonstances destinées à le pousser à retirer ou modifier sa requête ou à l'entraver de toute autre manière dans l'exercice du droit de recours individuel (voir par exemple, Berktay, précité, §§ 208 et 209, Demiray c. Turquie, no 27308/95, §§ 58-63, CEDH 2000-XII, ToÄŸcu c. Turquie, no 27601/95, §§ 146-149, 31 mai 2005, Elçi et autres c. Turquie, nos 23145/93 et 25091/94, §§ 711-725, 13 novembre 2003, et Timurtas c. Turquie, no 23531/94, §§ 119-123, CEDH 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 09.06.2011 - 31047/04

  Vereinbarkeit des Vollzugs einer Unterbringung in einer Sicherungsverwahrung mit …

  In der Regel erfordert er auch, dass die Rügen, mit denen später der Gerichtshof befasst werden soll, zumindest ihrem wesentlichen Inhalt nach Gegenstand der Anrufungen dieser Gerichte waren und dass die in den innerstaatlichen Bestimmungen vorgesehenen formalen Anforderungen und zeitlichen Fristen beachtet wurden (siehe unter anderem Cardot ./. Frankreich, 19. März 1991, Rdnr. 34, Serie A, Bd. 200; Elçi u. a. ./. Türkei, Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 23145/93 und 25091/94, Rdnr. 604, 13.
• EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 17888/12

  SHVYDKA v. UKRAINE

  The rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies normally requires that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been brought before the domestic courts, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among other authorities, Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200, and Elçi and Others v. Turkey, nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, §§ 604 and 605, 13 November 2003).
• EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 39541/98

  DÖLEK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.10.2016 - 47351/06

  TYMCHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 57980/11

  ZHYZITSKYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 24014/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 44093/98

  ÇELIK AND IMRET v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 66328/14

  N.M. c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 41716/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 25706/03

  Rechtssache G. gegen DEUTSCHLAND
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 25707/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 25.09.2007 - 28782/04

  H.L. gegen Deutschland
• EGMR, 20.06.2024 - 8826/20

  NAMAZLI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 66203/10

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 21.12.2004 - 31247/96

  TALAT TEPE v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 12.02.2015 - 5678/06

  YUDITSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 30465/02

  AHMET METE v. TURKEY (No. 2)
• EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 37300/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 30326/03

  ERKUS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 52392/99

  UÇAR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 29918/96

  TANRIKULU AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 6830/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 19508/07

  GRANOS ORGANICOS NACIONALES S.A. v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 03.07.2003 - 38422/97

  REYHAN contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.09.2000 - 49240/99

  GÜNDOGDU contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR, 18.09.2008 - 34027/03

  DUR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 24.04.2007 - 7333/06

  LOMBARDO AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR - 20995/22 (anhängig)

  ZIMOTA v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 04.09.2012 - 12498/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR - 16530/23 (anhängig)

  POPOVIC v. AUSTRIA