Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IPEK v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 18, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 on account of presumed deaths Violation of Art. 2 on account of lack of effective investigation Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5 Violation of P1-1 Violation of Art. 13 No violation of Art. 14 No violation of Art. 18 Failure to fulfil ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IPEK c. TURQUIE [Extraits]

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 18, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 2 à raison de décès présumés Violation de l'art. 2 à raison de l'absence d'enquête effective Violation de l'art. 3 Violation de l'art. 5 Violation de P1-1 Violation de l'art. 13 Non-violation de l'art. 14 Non-violation de l'art. 18 ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 25760/94
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 25760/94

Wird zitiert von ... (30)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 25760/94

  Le fait qu'un Gouvernement ne fournisse pas les informations en sa possession sans donner à cela de justification satisfaisante peut non seulement permettre de tirer des conclusions quant au bien-fondé des allégations, mais peut aussi altérer le respect par un Etat défendeur des obligations qui lui incombent au titre de l'article 38 § 1 a) de la Convention (Timurtas c. Turquie, no 23531/94, §§ 66 et 70, CEDH 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 26973/95

  YÖYLER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 25760/94

  La Cour renvoie à sa jurisprudence récente confirmant que le critère à appliquer pour apprécier les éléments de preuve est celui de la preuve « au-delà de tout doute raisonnable'(Orhan c. Turquie, no 25656/94, § 264, 19 juin 2002 ; Tepe c. Turquie, no 27244/95, § 125, 9 mai 2003 ; et Yöyler c. Turquie, no 26973/95, § 52, 24 juillet 2003).
• EGMR, 09.05.2003 - 27244/95

  TEPE v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 25760/94

  La Cour renvoie à sa jurisprudence récente confirmant que le critère à appliquer pour apprécier les éléments de preuve est celui de la preuve « au-delà de tout doute raisonnable'(Orhan c. Turquie, no 25656/94, § 264, 19 juin 2002 ; Tepe c. Turquie, no 27244/95, § 125, 9 mai 2003 ; et Yöyler c. Turquie, no 26973/95, § 52, 24 juillet 2003).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 25760/94

  La Cour renvoie à sa jurisprudence récente confirmant que le critère à appliquer pour apprécier les éléments de preuve est celui de la preuve « au-delà de tout doute raisonnable'(Orhan c. Turquie, no 25656/94, § 264, 19 juin 2002 ; Tepe c. Turquie, no 27244/95, § 125, 9 mai 2003 ; et Yöyler c. Turquie, no 26973/95, § 52, 24 juillet 2003).
• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94

  AKDENIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 25760/94

  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, 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.
• EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE

  Le fait qu'un gouvernement, comme en l'espèce, ne permette pas à la Cour de procéder à l'audition des requérants et à l'établissement des faits sans donner à cela de justification satisfaisante, peut altérer le respect par un Etat défendeur des obligations qui lui incombent au titre des articles 34 et 38 § 1 a) de la Convention (voir, mutatis mutandis, Ä°pek c. Turquie, no 25760/94, § 112, CEDH 2004-II ; TekdaÄŸ c. Turquie, no 27699/95, § 57, 15 janvier 2004 ; Tahsin Acar, précité, § 254).
• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 53050/21

  ZLATANOV v. BULGARIA

  However, the situation at hand, though raising extremely serious rule-of-law concerns, cannot be likened in terms of its gravity to the wanton and purposeful destruction of property by the security or armed forces, which is the only kind of situation in relation to which the Court has so far held that the remedy required under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of an alleged breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 entails, in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey, 24 April 1998, § 96, Reports 1998-II; Ipek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, § 198-99, ECHR 2004-II (extracts); Dogan and Others v. Turkey, nos.

 
• EGMR, 26.02.2013 - 24589/04

  BOZKIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  For the Court, that omission is sufficient, of itself, to conclude that the investigation was seriously deficient (see Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, § 176, ECHR 2004-II (extracts).

  Precisely because of the pre-eminent importance of the possibility for the disappeared person's relatives to be able to effectively challenge the State's responsibility, the Court has frequently found an additional violation of Article 13 in such cases (see, for example, Er and Others v. Turkey, no. 23016/04, 31 July 2012, §§ 110-113; Ipek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, 17 February 2004, ECHR 2004-II (extracts), § 198; Togcu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, 31 May 2005, §§ 137-140; and Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 68007/01, 5 July 2007, §§ 93 and 94).

• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  In doing so, the Court will assess the oral evidence given before the delegates and will also have particular regard to the investigation carried out at domestic level in order to establish whether that investigation was capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see, mutatis mutandis, Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, § 170, ECHR 2004-... (extracts), and the authorities cited therein).
• EGMR, 06.04.2021 - 10783/14

  HANDZHIYSKI v. BULGARIA

  For their part, the administrative costs (in this case, postage and office supplies - items (b) and (c) of the applicant's claim) incurred by the applicant's representatives in connection with the proceedings before the Court are in principle recoverable under Article 41 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (Article 50), 6 November 1980, § 40, Series A no. 38; Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (Article 50), 24 February 1983, § 25, Series A no. 59; Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, §§ 85-87, ECHR 2000-III; Ipek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, § 242 in fine, ECHR 2004-II (extracts); and Antonov v. Bulgaria, no. 58364/10, §§ 72 and 76, 28 May 2020).
• 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, 31.07.2012 - 40020/03

  M. AND OTHERS v. ITALY AND BULGARIA

  It is especially in respect of the latter that a relative may claim directly to be a victim of the authorities" conduct (see, Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 130-134, Reports 1998-III; Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 91-98, ECHR 2000-VI; Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, §§ 178-183, ECHR 2004-II (extracts); and conversely, Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 99, ECHR 1999-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, 08.12.2005 - 32444/96

  KANLIBAS c. TURQUIE

  Tout bien considéré, la Cour décide d'accorder, pour le dommage moral découlant de la violation procédurale de l'article 2 de la Convention, 12 500 EUR, que le requérant détiendra pour les ayants droit d'Ali Ekber Kanlıbas (Akkum et autres, précité, §§ 287-289, et Ä°pek c. Turquie, no 25760/94, §§ 235-239, CEDH 2004-II).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 15256/05

  TCHANKOTADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 36211/97

  KUMRU YILMAZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

  MURADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03

  MERYEM ÇELIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 39436/98

  CANAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 07.06.2005 - 40145/98

  KILINÇ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27305/95

  KOKU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 03.03.2005 - 52391/99

  RAMSAHAI AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 43854/98

  SOYLU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 33238/96

  KESER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 33239/96

  ARTUN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 33240/96

  AGTAS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 33247/96

  ÖZTOPRAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 16838/08

  BABAKIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.09.2007 - 31553/02

  ONAY v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 29.11.2005 - 37038/97

  NURI KURT v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27601/95

  TOGCU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 37850/97

  AKSAKAL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 33243/96

  SAYLI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 28299/95

  NESIBE HARAN v. TURKEY