Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 29105/03 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
VOLKAN OZDEMIR v. TURKEY
(englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 29105/03
- EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 29105/03
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 29105/03 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
VOLKAN ÖZDEMIR v. TURKEY
Art. 3, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 29105/03
- EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 29105/03
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Zitiert selbst (13)
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 29105/03
Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 29105/03
Failing this, a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Çolak and Filizer v. Turkey, nos. 32578/96 and 32579/96, § 30, 8 January 2004, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V, Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 61, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, and Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336). - EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96
BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 29105/03
The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in the following judgments: Okkalı v. Turkey (no. 52067/99, §§ 47-52, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)), and Batı and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§ 96-100, 2004-IV (extracts)).
- EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99
OKKALI c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 29105/03
The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in the following judgments: Okkalı v. Turkey (no. 52067/99, §§ 47-52, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)), and Batı and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§ 96-100, 2004-IV (extracts)). - EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94
ORHAN v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 29105/03
In assessing evidence, the Court has adopted the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 264, 18 June 2002, and Avsar, cited above, § 282). - EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94
AVSAR c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 29105/03
The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human rights requires that these provisions be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 390, ECHR 2001-VII). - EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00
KABLAN contre la TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 29105/03
The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in the following judgments: Okkalı v. Turkey (no. 52067/99, §§ 47-52, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)), and Batı and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§ 96-100, 2004-IV (extracts)). - EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 27602/95
ULKU EKINCI v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 29105/03
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, 26.10.2004 - 44093/98
ÇELIK AND IMRET v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 29105/03
The minimum standards as to effectiveness defined by the Court's case-law include the requirements that the investigation be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny, and that the competent authorities act with exemplary diligence and promptness (see, for example, Çelik and İmret v. Turkey, no. 44093/98, § 55, 26 October 2004). - EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 32347/02
MEHMET EREN v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 29105/03
As such, the Court considers that the medical reports in question cannot be relied on as cogent evidence for proving or disproving that the applicant was ill-treated (see, for example, Mehmet Eren v. Turkey, no. 32347/02, §§ 40-42, 14 October 2008). - EGMR, 13.12.2007 - 14166/02
ESER CEYLAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 32577/02
ORHAN KUR v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 12.06.2007 - 18207/03
NEVRUZ KOÇ v. TURKEY
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".