Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TOGCU v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 18 MRK
  Admissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.09.1999 - 27601/95
• EGMR, 09.04.2002 - 27601/95
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27601/95

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TOGCU v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 18, Art. 34, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Art. 2 (disappearance) No violation of Art. 2 (alleged 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 Not necessary to examine ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.09.1999 - 27601/95
• EGMR, 09.04.2002 - 27601/95
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27601/95

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27601/95

  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 - 27601/95

  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 - 27601/95

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

 
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 25704/94

  CICEK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27601/95

  Having regard to the cases involving disappearances which it has been called upon to examine and which occurred in 1994, the Court concludes that that general context still pertained in that year (see, for instance, Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, 27 February 2001; Ä°rfan Bilgin v. Turkey, no. 25659/94, ECHR 2001-VIII; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002; Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27601/95

  Having regard to the cases involving disappearances which it has been called upon to examine and which occurred in 1994, the Court concludes that that general context still pertained in that year (see, for instance, Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, 27 February 2001; Ä°rfan Bilgin v. Turkey, no. 25659/94, ECHR 2001-VIII; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002; Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 25760/94

  IPEK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27601/95

  Having regard to the cases involving disappearances which it has been called upon to examine and which occurred in 1994, the Court concludes that that general context still pertained in that year (see, for instance, Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, 27 February 2001; Ä°rfan Bilgin v. Turkey, no. 25659/94, ECHR 2001-VIII; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002; Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27601/95

  The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 49, § 161, and Kaya v. Turkey, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions, 1998-I, p. 329, § 105).
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 25659/94

  I. BILGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27601/95

  Having regard to the cases involving disappearances which it has been called upon to examine and which occurred in 1994, the Court concludes that that general context still pertained in that year (see, for instance, Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, 27 February 2001; Ä°rfan Bilgin v. Turkey, no. 25659/94, ECHR 2001-VIII; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002; Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 39541/98

  DÖLEK c. TURQUIE

  Dans ces conditions, à la lumière des éléments dont elle dispose, la Cour estime que les faits ne sont pas suffisamment établis pour lui permettre de conclure que les autorités de l'Etat défendeur ont intimidé ou harcelé la requérante dans des circonstances destinées à la pousser à retirer ou modifier sa requête ou à l'entraver de toute autre manière dans l'exercice du droit de recours individuel (voir par exemple, Berktay, précité, §§ 208 et 209, Demiray c. Turquie, no 27308/95, §§ 58-63, CEDH 2000-XII, ToÄ?cu c. Turquie, no 27601/95, §§ 146-149, 31 mai 2005, Elçi et autres c. Turquie, nos 23145/93 et 25091/94, §§ 711-725, 13 novembre 2003, et Timurtas c. Turquie, no 23531/94, §§ 119-123, CEDH 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 58478/00

  RUPA c. ROUMANIE (N° 1)

  Dans ces conditions, eu égard aux éléments de preuve soumis à son appréciation, la Cour estime les faits ne sont pas suffisamment établis pour lui permettre de conclure que les autorités de l'État défendeur ont intimidé ou harcelé le requérant dans des circonstances destinées à le pousser à retirer ou modifier sa requête ou à l'entraver de toute autre manière dans l'exercice du droit de recours individuel (voir par exemple, Berktay, précité, §§ 208 et 209, Demiray c. Turquie, no 27308/95, §§ 58-63, CEDH 2000-XII, ToÄ?cu c. Turquie, no 27601/95, §§ 146-149, 31 mai 2005, Elçi et autres c. Turquie, nos 23145/93 et 25091/94, §§ 711-725, 13 novembre 2003, et Timurtas c. Turquie, no 23531/94, §§ 119-123, CEDH 2000-VI).