Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NESIBE HARAN 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. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 14+2 MRK
  No violation of Art. 2 (disappearance) Violation of Art. 2 (inadequate investigation) Not necessary to examine remaining complaint under Art. 2 No violation of Art. 3 No violation of Art. 5 No separate issue under Art. 13 No violation of Art. 14+2 14+3 or 14+5 No ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 28299/95
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 28299/95

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 28299/95

  The mere fact that the authorities were informed of the killing of the applicant's husband gave rise ipso facto to an obligation under Article 2 to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, §§ 101 and 103, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 28299/95

  There is also a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition implicit in this context (Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI,§§ 102-04; Çakıcı, cited above, §§ 80, 87 and 106, Tanrıkulu, cited above, § 109 and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 28299/95

  In this respect, it has previously held that the disappearance and unacknowledged detention of a person suspected by the authorities of PKK involvement could be considered as life-threatening in the general context of the situation in south-east Turkey in 1993 (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 85, ECHR 2000-VI).

 
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 25704/94

  CICEK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 28299/95

  Having regard to the cases involving disappearances which it has been called upon to examine and which occurred in 1994, the Court concludes that the general context persisted 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, cited above; Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004-...).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 28299/95

  However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating a use of lethal force or a disappearance may generally be regarded as essential for maintaining public confidence in the maintenance of the rule of law and for preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, in general, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 108-15, 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, 06.10.2005 - 28299/95

  However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating a use of lethal force or a disappearance may generally be regarded as essential for maintaining public confidence in the maintenance of the rule of law and for preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, in general, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 108-15, ECHR 2001-III, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, §§ 390-395, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 25659/94

  I. BILGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 28299/95

  Having regard to the cases involving disappearances which it has been called upon to examine and which occurred in 1994, the Court concludes that the general context persisted 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, cited above; Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004-...).
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 25760/94

  IPEK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 28299/95

  Having regard to the cases involving disappearances which it has been called upon to examine and which occurred in 1994, the Court concludes that the general context persisted 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, cited above; Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004-...).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 28299/95

  In the initial application form, the applicant's representatives referred to their submissions in the Akkum and Others v. Turkey (no. 21894/93, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 28299/95

  The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 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, mutatis mutandis, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 49, § 161).
• EGMR, 01.07.2003 - 29178/95

  FINUCANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• 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, 10.02.2011 - 1572/07

  NASUKHANOVY v. RUSSIA

  The Court thus considers that the moral suffering endured by the applicants has not reached a dimension and character distinct from the emotional distress which may be regarded as inevitably caused to relatives of a victim of a serious human-rights violation (see Nesibe Haran v. Turkey, no. 28299/95, § 84, 6 October 2005).