Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BÖKE AND KANDEMIR v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-3-c Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Wird zitiert von ... (24)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 37410/97

  KAMIL UZUN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01

  It concludes therefore that there is no need to make a separate ruling on the applicants" remaining complaints under these provisions (see Yalçın Küçük v. Turkey (no. 3), no. 71353/01, § 40, 22 April 2008; Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, § 132, 22 July 2008).
• EGMR, 05.10.1988 - 9787/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01

  It reiterates that, in the case of Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom (29 November 1988, § 62, Series A no. 145 B), it found that detention in police custody which had lasted four days and six hours without judicial control fell outside the strict time constraints of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 44093/98

  ÇELIK AND IMRET v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01

  One of the minimum standards of effectiveness defined by the Court's case-law is that the competent authorities act with exemplary diligence and promptness (see, for example, Çelik and Ä°mret v. Turkey, no. 44093/98, § 55, 26 October 2004).

• EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 10301/03

  GETIREN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01

  It concludes therefore that there is no need to make a separate ruling on the applicants" remaining complaints under these provisions (see Yalçın Küçük v. Turkey (no. 3), no. 71353/01, § 40, 22 April 2008; Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, § 132, 22 July 2008).
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 26896/02

  BAYAM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01

  The Court recalls that it has already examined and rejected the Government's preliminary objections in similar cases (see, for example, Karatay and Others v. Turkey, no. 11468/02, § 35, 15 February 2007; Bayam v. Turkey, no. 26896/02, § 16, 31 July 2007).
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 11468/02

  KARATAY AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01

  The Court recalls that it has already examined and rejected the Government's preliminary objections in similar cases (see, for example, Karatay and Others v. Turkey, no. 11468/02, § 35, 15 February 2007; Bayam v. Turkey, no. 26896/02, § 16, 31 July 2007).
• EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 71353/01

  YALCIN KÜÇÜK (NO. 3) c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01

  It concludes therefore that there is no need to make a separate ruling on the applicants" remaining complaints under these provisions (see Yalçın Küçük v. Turkey (no. 3), no. 71353/01, § 40, 22 April 2008; Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, § 132, 22 July 2008).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01

  To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt", but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, among many others, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV; Süleyman Erkan v. Turkey, no. 26803/02, § 31, 31 January 2008).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01

  A full description of the law and practice at the relevant time may be found in Batı and Others v. Turkey, (nos. 33097/06 and 57834/00, §§ 95-99, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)) and in Salduz v. Turkey ([GC], no. 36391/02, §§ 27-31 and 37-44, 27 November 2008).
• KAG Münster, 18.01.2007 - 10/06

  Abschluss eines beamtenähnlichen Arbeitsvertrages; Ersetzung der Zustimmung der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01

  10/06/2009.
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 5264/03

  GÜLBAHAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 26803/02

  SÜLEYMAN ERKAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 32347/02

  MEHMET EREN v. TURKEY

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 18996/06

  [FRE]

  The Court recalls at the outset, as it has held in previous cases, that the conclusion reached in paragraph 85 above does not preclude the applicant's complaint in relation to Article 3 from being "arguable" for the purposes of the positive obligation to investigate (see, Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009; and Aysu v. Turkey, no. 44021/07, § 40, 13 March 2012).
• EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 8077/08

  KAÇMAZ v. TURKEY

  Nevertheless, in the absence of any evidence in support of the applicant's allegations, the Court considers that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its substantive aspect in respect of the ill-treatment to which the applicant was allegedly subjected during his detention in police custody (see Gülbahar and Others v. Turkey, no. 5264/03, § 54, 21 October 2008; and Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 50, 10 March 2009).
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06

  [ENG]

  Nevertheless, as it has held in previous case, that does not preclude his complaint in relation to Article 3 form being "arguable" for the purposes of the positive obligation to investigate (see Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009).

• EGMR, 25.09.2019 - 36617/07

  AFET SÜREYYA EREN AGAINST TURKEY AND 130 OTHER CASES

  71912/01+.
• EGMR, 22.09.2016 - 1574/06

  SAVCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  Although in the present case the Court has not found it proved, on account of a lack of evidence, that the applicant was ill-treated by the police after his arrest, that does not in principle preclude the complaint in relation to Article 3 from being "arguable" for the purposes of the positive obligation to investigate (see Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009, and Aleksandr Smirnov v. Ukraine, no. 38683/06, § 57, 15 July 2010).
• EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 72174/10

  YIGITDOGAN v. TURKEY

  Nevertheless, as it has held in previous cases, this does not preclude the applicant's complaint in relation to Article 3 from being "arguable" for the purposes of the positive obligation to investigate (see Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009, and Aysu v. Turkey, no. 44021/07, § 40, 13 March 2012).
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 7067/06

  [ENG]

  Nevertheless, as it has held in previous cases, that does not preclude his complaint in relation to Article 3 from being "arguable" for the purposes of the positive obligation to investigate (see Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009).
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  [ENG]

  Nevertheless, as it has held in previous cases, that does not preclude this complaint in relation to Article 3 from being "arguable" for the purposes of the positive obligation to investigate (see, Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009).
• EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 38683/06

  [ENG]

  Although in the present case the Court has not found it proved, on account of lack of evidence, that the applicant was ill-treated in the hands of the police, nonetheless, as it has held in previous cases, that does not in principle preclude the complaint in relation to Article 3 from being "arguable" for the purposes of the positive obligation to investigate (see Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009).
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 34364/08

  [ENG]

  Nevertheless, as it has held in previous cases, that does not preclude her complaint in relation to Article 3 from being "arguable" for the purposes of the obligation to investigate (see, among many other authorities, Yaşa v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, § 112, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI; Ay, cited above; Gülbahar and Others, cited above, § 72; Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009; Gök and Güler v. Turkey, no. 74307/01, § 39, 28 July 2009; and Aysu v. Turkey, no. 44021/07, § 40, 13 March 2012).
• EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 17362/03

  CEVAT SOYSAL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 5911/05

  KLEUTIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 22568/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 4870/02

  GÜL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 36144/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 28.08.2012 - 37552/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 37871/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 58210/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 28451/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 74307/01

  GÖK AND GÜLER v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 5256/02

  KARABIL c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.11.2009 - 10309/03

  ARAT v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 20406/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 33735/02

  ÜMIT AYDIN c. TURQUIE