Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 14.05.2002

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 25760/94   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2004,37077
EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 25760/94 (https://dejure.org/2004,37077)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.02.2004 - 25760/94 (https://dejure.org/2004,37077)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. Februar 2004 - 25760/94 (https://dejure.org/2004,37077)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,37077) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

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 obligations under Art. 38-1-a Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    IPEK c. TURQUIE

    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 Manquement aux obligations de l'art. 38-1-a Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

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 ... (32)

  • 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, OsmanoÄ?lu 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, 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 ; TekdaÄ? c. Turquie, no 27699/95, § 57, 15 janvier 2004 ; Tahsin Acar, précité, § 254).
  • 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, OsmanoÄ?lu 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

    MURADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

    Taking into account the fact that these witnesses testified before the domestic authorities several months after the incident, the Court notes that the passage of time inevitably takes a toll on a witness's capacity to recall events with great detail and accuracy (compare with Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, § 116, ECHR 2004-II (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 15256/05

    TCHANKOTADZE v. GEORGIA

    Here are the judgments (in chronological order) in which this pattern has been employed: Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey (24 April 1998, Reports 1998-II) - violations of Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; Kurt v. Turkey (25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III) - violations of Articles 3, 5 and 13, as well as a finding "that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under [former] Article 25 § 1" (as it was worded at that time); Tekin v. Turkey (9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV) - violations of Articles 3 and 13; Ergi v. Turkey (28 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV) - violations of Articles 2 and 13 and (former) Article 25 § 1 (as it was worded at that time); Sener v. Turkey (no. 26680/95, 18 July 2000) - violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 10; Tanli v. Turkey (no. 26129/95, ECHR 2001-III) - violations of Articles 2 (both substantive and procedural) and 13; Tepe v. Turkey (no. 27244/95, 9 May 2003) - violations of Articles 2 (procedural) and 13; Yöyler v. Turkey (no. 26973/95, 24 July 2003) - violation of Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; Tekdag v. Turkey (no. 27699/95, 15 January 2004) - violations of Article 2 (procedural) and 13, as well as a finding that the respondent Government had "failed to fulfil their obligation under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention"; Ipek v. Turkey (no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004-II) - violations of Articles 2 (both substantive and procedural), 3, 5 and 13 (the latter in conjunction with Articles 2, 3 and 5) of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as well as a finding that the respondent Government had "failed to fulfil their obligation under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention"; Altun v. Turkey (no. 24561/94, 1 June 2004) - violations of Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; Sirin Yilmaz v. Turkey (no. 35875/97, 29 July 2004) - violations of Article 2 (procedural) and 13; Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey (no. 32446/96, 2 November 2004) - violations of Article 3, Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 and Article 13; Dicle v. Turkey (no. 34685/97, 10 November 2004) - violations of Article 10 and Article 6 § 1; Mentese and Others v. Turkey (no. 36217/97, 18 January 2005) - violations of Articles 2 (procedural) and 13; Agtas and Others v. Turkey (no. 33240/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Artun and Others v. Turkey (no. 33239/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Keser and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33238/96 and 32965/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Kumru Yilmaz and Others v. Turkey (no. 36211/97, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Nesibe Haran v. Turkey (no. 28299/95, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 2 (procedural); Öztoprak and Others v. Turkey (no. 33247/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Sayli v. Turkey (no. 33243/96, 2 February 2006) - a violation of Article 13; Aksakal v. Turkey (no. 37850/97, §§ 43-44, 15 February 2007) - a violation of Article 13; Khodorkovskiy (cited above) - violations of Article 3 and Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4; OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos (cited above) - violations of Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev (cited above) - violations of Article 3, Article 5 §§ 3 and 4, Article 6 § 1 (in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) and (d)) and Article 8 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as well as a finding that the authorities had failed "to respect their obligation under Article 34 of the Convention".
  • 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, 11.09.2007 - 51967/99

    TEREN AKSAKAL v. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27305/95

    KOKU v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 28299/95

    NESIBE HARAN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 39436/98

    CANAN c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 07.06.2005 - 40145/98

    KILINC ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27601/95

    TOGCU v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 16838/08

    BABAKIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03

    MERYEM ÇELIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 16085/90

    CHRISTODOULIDOU v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 49234/99

    DUMITRU POPESCU c. ROUMANIE (N° 1)

  • EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 36211/97

    KUMRU YILMAZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 33239/96

    ARTUN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 63133/15

    UYSAL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 29.11.2005 - 37038/97

    NURI KURT v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 03.03.2005 - 52391/99

    RAMSAHAI AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  • EGMR, 20.09.2007 - 31553/02

    ONAY v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 43854/98

    SOYLU v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 37850/97

    AKSAKAL v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 33247/96

    OZTOPRAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 33243/96

    SAYLI v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 33240/96

    AGTAS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 33238/96

    KESER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 25760/94   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2002,53746
EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 25760/94 (https://dejure.org/2002,53746)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14.05.2002 - 25760/94 (https://dejure.org/2002,53746)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14. Mai 2002 - 25760/94 (https://dejure.org/2002,53746)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2002,53746) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht