Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ULKU EKINCI v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objections dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies six month period) No violation of Art. 2 with regard to killing of applicant's husband Violation of Art. 2 with regard to lack of effective investigation No violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.06.1999 - 27602/95
• EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 27602/95

Wird zitiert von ... (22)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 27602/95

  However, as it has held in previous cases, that does not preclude the complaint in relation to Article 2 from being an "arguable" one for the purposes of Article 13 (Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 118, ECHR 1999-IV, Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, ECHR 2000-III, and Avsar v. Turkey, loc. cit., § 430).

  The Court considers that the applicant's complaint under Article 14, in so far as it has been substantiated, arises out of the same facts considered under Articles 2, 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention and does not find it necessary to examine this complaint separately (cf. Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 131, ECHR 2000-III).

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 27602/95

  Although the Court accepts that the inadequacy of the investigation into the killing of her husband may have caused the applicant feelings of anguish and mental suffering, the Court considers that, insofar as the applicant has substantiated this claim, it has not been established that there were special features which would justify finding a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in relation to the applicant herself (cf. mutatis mutandis, Kurt v. Turkey judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, pp. 1187-1188, §§ 130-134, Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, §§ 98-99, ECHR 1999-IV, and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002, §§ 357-360).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 27602/95

  Although the Court accepts that the inadequacy of the investigation into the killing of her husband may have caused the applicant feelings of anguish and mental suffering, the Court considers that, insofar as the applicant has substantiated this claim, it has not been established that there were special features which would justify finding a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in relation to the applicant herself (cf. mutatis mutandis, Kurt v. Turkey judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, pp. 1187-1188, §§ 130-134, Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, §§ 98-99, ECHR 1999-IV, and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002, §§ 357-360).

• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 55721/07

  Britische Soldaten sollen Kriegsverbrechen begangen haben

  Le Gouvernement indique que la Cour a pour pratique de refuser expressément d'enjoindre à l'Etat d'ouvrir une nouvelle enquête dans les affaires où elle constate une violation de l'obligation procédurale découlant de l'article 2 (voir, par exemple, Varnava et autres c. Turquie [GC], nos 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 et 16073/90, § 222, CEDH 2009-... ; Ülkü Ekinci c. Turquie, no 27602/95, § 179, 16 juillet 2002, et Finucane, précité, § 89).
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 46286/99

  HACI ÖZEN v. TURKEY

  Where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court must conduct a particularly thorough scrutiny (see Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, § 135, 16 July 2002) and will do so on the basis of all the material submitted by the parties.

  Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, for example, Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, § 142, 16 July 2002).

• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 54169/00

  ENZILE ÖZDEMIR v. TURKEY

  In this connection, the Court finds that since the applicant's complaints under Articles 5, 6 and 14 of the Convention are intrinsically linked to her complaint under Article 2 of the Convention pertaining to the disappearance of her husband, the applicant can also claim to be a victim under these provisions (see Ekinci v. Turkey (dec.), no. 27602/95, 8 June 1999, and, a contrario, Biç and Others v. Turkey, no. 55955/00, §§ 17-24, 2 February 2006).

  It must be assessed on the basis of all relevant facts and with regard to the practical realities of investigation work (see Velikova v. Bulgaria, no. 41488/98, § 80, ECHR 2000-VI, and Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, § 144, 16 July 2002).

 
• EGMR, 01.07.2003 - 29178/95

  FINUCANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  En ce qui concerne la position de la requérante à l'égard de l'obligation de mener une enquête effective, la Cour n'a pas jusqu'ici laissé entendre qu'un Gouvernement doive, en cas de constat d'une violation de l'article 2 de ce type, ouvrir une nouvelle enquête sur la mort dont il est question ; elle a même parfois expressément refusé de se prononcer en ce sens (Ülkü Ekinci c. Turquie, no 27602/95, § 179, 16 juillet 2002).
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 4762/05

  MIKAYIL MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  As to the alleged suffering experienced by the applicant as a result of his wife's death, the Court reiterates that, on the basis of the information available, it was impossible to establish in the present case that the State agents were responsible, directly or indirectly, for the death of the applicant's wife (compare, for example, Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, § 149, 16 July 2002).
• EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 35072/97

  SIMSEK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, § 161, Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII, and Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, §§ 141-42, 16 July 2002).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07

  MADER v. CROATIA

  Where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court must conduct a particularly thorough scrutiny (see Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, § 135, 16 July 2002) and will do so on the basis of all the material submitted by the parties.
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 27065/05

  ABUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  As regards individual measures, the Court observes that it has so far refused to give any specific indications to a Government that they should, in response to a finding of a procedural breach of Article 2, hold a new investigation (see Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, § 179, 16 July 2002; Finucane v. the United Kingdom, no. 29178/95, § 89, ECHR 2003-VIII; Varnava and Others, cited above, § 222; Kukayev v. Russia, no. 29361/02, §§ 133-34, 15 November 2007; and Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, §§ 142-43, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 15762/10

  CADIROGLU v. TURKEY

  As regards the assessment of evidence, the Court reiterates that its role is of a subsidiary nature, and that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, § 142, 16 July 2002, and McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).
• EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 38595/97

  KAKOULLI v. TURKEY

  Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, § 161; Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts); and Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, §§ 141-42, 16 July 2002).
• EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 44862/04

  DIMITROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 44936/04

  BABAT AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 29105/03

  VOLKAN ÖZDEMIR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 16664/07

  ABAKAROVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 34137/03

  GEORGI GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 22.06.2010 - 6414/02

  KOSEVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 09.02.2010 - 58933/00

  ADIYAMAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 19.11.2009 - 18527/02

  TONCHEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 16275/02

  GÜLSENOGLU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 19406/05

  ZASHEVI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 13752/06

  BOZTAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 36217/97

  MENTESE AND OTHERS v. TURKEY