Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOKU v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Art. 2 (alleged abduction and killing) Violation of Art. 2 (failure to protect life) Violation of Art. 2 (failure to investigate) No violation of Art. 3 No violation of Art. 5 Violation of Art. 13 Not necessary to examine Art. 14 Pecuniary damage - ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 27305/95
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27305/95

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27305/95

  As regards the applicant's claim for the loss of his earnings, the Court's case law has established 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 appropriate cases, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see, among other authorities, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (Article 50), judgment of 13 June 1994, Series A no. 285-C, pp.
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27305/95

  There is also a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition implicit in this context (see Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-IV, §§ 102-104; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 80, 87, 106, ECHR 1999-IV; Tanrıkulu, cited above, § 109).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27305/95

  The failure by a Government 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 (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 66 and 70, ECHR 2000-VI).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27305/95

  In that connection, the Court points out that this obligation is not confined to cases where it is apparent that the killing was caused by an agent of the State (see Salman v. Turkey [GC] no. 21986/93, § 105, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 22947/93

  AKKOC v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27305/95

  Not every claimed risk to life therefore can entail for the authorities a Convention requirement to take operational measures to prevent that risk from materialising (see Akkoç v. Turkey, nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, § 78, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27305/95

  However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating the use of lethal force 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 McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 108-115, ECHR 2001-III, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 390-395, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27305/95

  However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating the use of lethal force 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 McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 108-115, ECHR 2001-III, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 390-395, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 19.03.2002 - 27243/95

  SABUKTEKIN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27305/95

  Indeed, a number of attacks carried out against, or killings of, politicians belonging to these political parties have been examined by the Court (see, inter alia, Binbay v. Turkey (friendly settlement), no. 24922/94, 21 October 2004; Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 25625/94, 18 July 2000; Nuray Sen (no. 2) v. Turkey, no. 25354/94, 30 March 2004; Sincar v. Turkey (dec.), 10 October 2002, no. 70835/01; Sabuktekin v. Turkey, no. 27243/95, ECHR 2002-II (extracts); Macır v. Turkey, no. 28516/95, 22 April 2004).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27305/95

  In reaching its conclusions, the prolonged and continuing periods of uncertainty and apprehension suffered by the applicants were determinant factors for the Court (see Timurtas, cited above, § 98; Ä°pek, cited above, § 183; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 360, 18 June 2002).
• EGMR, 10.10.2002 - 70835/01

  SINCAR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27305/95

  Indeed, a number of attacks carried out against, or killings of, politicians belonging to these political parties have been examined by the Court (see, inter alia, Binbay v. Turkey (friendly settlement), no. 24922/94, 21 October 2004; Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 25625/94, 18 July 2000; Nuray Sen (no. 2) v. Turkey, no. 25354/94, 30 March 2004; Sincar v. Turkey (dec.), 10 October 2002, no. 70835/01; Sabuktekin v. Turkey, no. 27243/95, ECHR 2002-II (extracts); Macır v. Turkey, no. 28516/95, 22 April 2004).
• EGMR, 22.04.2003 - 28516/95

  MACIR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 25760/94

  IPEK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 25354/94

  NURAY SEN v. TURKEY (No. 2)
• EGMR, 21.10.2004 - 24922/94

  BINBAY v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 26589/06

  SAKINE EPÖZDEMIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  In one such case the Court noted, for example, that the brother of the applicant in question - as the chairman of the Elbistan branch of HADEP, a pro-Kurdish political party established after the DEP was dissolved by the Constitutional Court (see Dicle for the Democratic Party (DEP) of Turkey v. Turkey, no. 25141/94, 10 December 2002; see also, HADEP and Demir v. Turkey, no. 28003/03, 14 December 2010, regarding the dissolution of HADEP by the Constitutional Court) - had belonged to a category of person who ran a particular risk of falling victim to abduction and murder (see Koku v. Turkey, no. 27305/95, § 131, 31 May 2005).

  The majority refer to some cases in which, after the abduction of a person, the relatives contacted the authorities and asked them to take measures to protect the life of the kidnapped person (paragraph 71 of the judgment, referring to Koku v. Turkey, no. 27305/95, § 132, 31 May 2005, and Osmanoglu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, § 75, 24 January 2008).

• EGMR, 05.06.2007 - 63758/00

  ANIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Taking into account the family situation and the age of the deceased Ahmet Anık, the awards made in similar cases (see, inter alia, Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 286, ECHR 2005-II (extracts), Çelikbilek v. Turkey, no. 27693/95, § 119, 31 May 2005, and Koku v. Turkey, no. 27305/95, § 195, 31 May 2005) and deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards Ahmet Anık's widow and six children, jointly, the sum of EUR 60, 000.
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 15397/02

  KAVAKLIOGLU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Cela étant, compte tenu du nombre des requérants parties à la présente procédure et du fait que ces derniers se trouvent actuellement soit en liberté soit dispersés dans plusieurs prisons, et considérant que, tout au long de la procédure, Me Bayraktar a agi en qualité de porte-parole de ses neuf confrères, la Cour estime devoir prendre - comme déjà par le passé (voir, mutatis mutandis, Osmanoglu c. Turquie, no 48804/99, § 131, 24 janvier 2008, Koku c. Turquie, no 27305/95, § 203, 31 mai 2005, et Ikincisoy c. Turquie, no 26144/95, § 154, 27 juillet 2004) - une décision exceptionnelle concernant la modalité de remboursement des frais et dépens, même si aucune précision dans ce sens ne lui a été donnée par les requérants (article 22 de l"« instruction pratique ", citée au paragraphe 298 ci-dessus).
• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 54169/00

  ENZILE ÖZDEMIR v. TURKEY

  Thirdly, the Court notes that, while the Government deny any State involvement and have briefly stated in their observations that they are not certain whether he has been abducted or killed by anyone, they have not challenged the applicant's version of facts regarding the circumstances surrounding her husband's abduction and the events thereafter, particularly the date, the place and the manner in which Mehmet Özdemir was seen to have been abducted (see, for example, a contrario, Çelikbilek v. Turkey, no. 27693/95, §§ 51-52, 31 May 2005, Koku v. Turkey, no. 27305/95, § 101, 31 May 2005 and Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan v. Turkey, no. 41964/98, § 72, 27 June 2006).