Weitere Entscheidung unten: EKMR, 07.04.1997

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2002,34216
EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94 (https://dejure.org/2002,34216)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.06.2002 - 25656/94 (https://dejure.org/2002,34216)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Juni 2002 - 25656/94 (https://dejure.org/2002,34216)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2002,34216) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ORHAN v. TURKEY

    Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 18, Art. 34, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protoko... ll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of Art. 2 Violation of Art. 3 in respect of applicant Violation of Art. 5 Violation of Art. 8 and P1-1 in respect of applicant and brothers Violation of Art. 8 in respect of applicant's son Violation of Art. 13 Not necessary to examine Art. 14 Not ...

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 ... (127)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

  • EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

    McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94
    The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).

    However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating a use of lethal force or disappearance may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their maintenance of the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, in general, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 108-115, ECHR 2001-III and Avsar v. Turkey, cited above, §§ 390-395).

  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

    ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94
    In the first place, the Court has, in previous cases, recorded deficiencies mainly relating to the "unsatisfactory and arbitrary distinction" drawn by gendarmes between being taken into custody, in which case an entry is made in the custody records, and being detained for observation and/or questioning, in which case there will not necessarily be a custody record entry (Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-IV, and the above-cited Çiçek case, at §§ 137-138).

    Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV; Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, § 32, ECHR 2000-V, and Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 82, ECHR 2000-VI).

  • EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

    TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94
    A failure on a Government's part to submit such information which is in their hands without a satisfactory explanation may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention (Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94 §§ 66 and 70, ECHR 2000-VI).

    Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV; Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, § 32, ECHR 2000-V, and Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 82, ECHR 2000-VI).

     
  • EGMR, 27.09.1999 - 32377/96
    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94
    31417/96 and 32377/96, §§ 22-23, ECHR 2000).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

    ILHAN c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94
    They cannot leave it to the initiative of the next of kin either to lodge a formal complaint or to take responsibility for the conduct of any investigatory procedures (see, for example, mutatis mutandis, Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC] no. 22277/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 25801/94

    DULAS v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94
    No provision is made, as in other substantive clauses of the Convention and its Protocols, for exceptions and no derogation from it is possible under Article 15 (Aksoy v. Turkey judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, § 62, Dulas v. Turkey, no. 25801/94, § 52, ECHR 2001, and Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey judgment of 24 April 1998, Reports 1998-II, § 75).
  • EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 26129/95

    TANLI v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94
    The Court has had regard therefore to, on the one hand, the applicant's detailed actuarial submissions and calculations as to the capital sum representing the claims of lost past and future incomes (Tanli v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 183, ECHR 2001 and the above-cited judgment of Çakıcı v. Turkey, § 127) and, on the other hand, the absence of any independent evidence concerning the size of the landholdings, the number of livestock and the income therefrom of the applicant, Selim Orhan and Hasan Orhan, or of Cezayir Orhan's actual earnings at the relevant time or of the applicant's current earnings.
  • EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

    TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94
    It falls to the Committee of Ministers acting under Article 54 of the Convention to supervise compliance in this respect (see above-cited judgments of Papamichalopoulos and Others, § 34 and Akdivar and Others (Article 50), § 47, and, as regards consequential orders, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, §§ 69-72).
  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 6538/74

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94
    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 (just satisfaction), nos.
  • EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94
    The Court recalls 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 (Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain judgment of 13 June 1994 (Article 50), Series A no. 285-C, §§ 16-20, and the above-cited judgments in the Cakıcı case, § 127, and the Selçuk and Asker case, § 112).
  • EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

    BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 09.05.2000 - 20764/92

    ERTAK c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  • EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

    AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

    McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

    RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  • EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 60654/00

    SYSSOYEVA ET AUTRES c. LETTONIE

    A cet égard, la Cour rappelle qu'il n'est guère approprié que les autorités d'un Etat défendeur entrent ainsi en contact direct avec un requérant ; même si un gouvernement a des raisons de croire que, dans une affaire donnée, il y a un quelconque abus du droit de recours individuel, il doit en avertir la Cour et lui faire part de ses doutes (voir Tanrıkulu précité, § 131, et Orhan c. Turquie, no 25656/94, § 409, 18 juin 2002).
  • EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

    Massaker von Katyn

    The Government further noted the absence of "special factors" which could have given the applicants" sufferings "a dimension and character distinct from the emotional distress which may be regarded as inevitably caused to relatives of a victim of serious violations of human rights" (here they quoted Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 184, ECHR 2005-XI, and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, §§ 357-358, 18 June 2002).

    It can also result from the failure of the authorities to respond to the quest for information by the relatives or from the obstacles placed in their way, leaving them to bear the brunt of the efforts to uncover any facts, where this attitude may be regarded as disclosing a flagrant, continuous and callous disregard of an obligation to account for the fate of the missing person (see, in particular, Açıs v. Turkey, no. 7050/05, §§ 36 and 51-54, 1 February 2011; Varnava and Others, cited above, § 200; OsmanoÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, § 96, 24 January 2008; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 114, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, § 139, 27 July 2006; Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 184, ECHR 2005-XI; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 219, ECHR 2005-VIII; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002; and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV).

  • EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 31821/96

    ISSA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    The reasonableness of that assertion must be tested in the light of the documentary and other evidence which the parties have submitted to the Court, having regard to the standard of proof which it habitually employs when ascertaining whether there is a basis in fact for an allegation of unlawful killing, namely proof "beyond reasonable doubt"(Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 264, 18 June 2002; Tepe v. Turkey, no. 27244/95, § 125, 9 May 2003; and Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, § 109, ECHR 2004-... (extracts)), it being understood that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EKMR, 07.04.1997 - 25656/94   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1997,25949
EKMR, 07.04.1997 - 25656/94 (https://dejure.org/1997,25949)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 07.04.1997 - 25656/94 (https://dejure.org/1997,25949)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 07. April 1997 - 25656/94 (https://dejure.org/1997,25949)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1997,25949) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ORHAN v. TURKEY

    Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 18, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. ... 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 27, Art. 27 Abs. 2 MRK
    Admissible (englisch)

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)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

  • EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

    DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

    Auszug aus EKMR, 07.04.1997 - 25656/94
    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, Eur. Court H.R., Akdivar judgment of 16 September 1996, p. 16, para. 68, 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, 07.04.1997 - 25656/94
    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, Eur. Court H.R., Akdivar judgment of 16 September 1996, p. 16, para. 68, and Nos. 14116/88 and 14117/88, Sargin and Yagci v. Turkey, Dec. 11.05.89, D.R. 61 p. 250, 262).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht