Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ABDULSAMET YAMAN v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 15, Art. 15 Abs. 1, Art. 18, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 13 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-5 No violation of Art. 14 No violation of Art. 18 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 32446/96
• EGMR, 02.11.2004 - 32446/96

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2004 - 32446/96

  A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, pp. 2439-40, §§ 102-04; Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-IV §§ 80, 87 and 106; and the above-cited Mahmut Kaya judgment, §§ 106-07).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2004 - 32446/96

  In the circumstances, this matter is more appropriately examined under Article 13 (see, among other authorities, Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 120, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2004 - 32446/96

  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, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2004 - 32446/96

  In assessing evidence, the Court has generally applied the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001).
• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

  VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2004 - 32446/96

  Having regard to the conclusion reached with regard to Article 5 § 3 (see paragraphs 74 and 75 above) the Court considers that the period in question (nine days) sits ill with the notion of "speedily" under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Igdeli v. Turkey, no. 29296/95, § § 34 and 35, 20 June 2002; Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 29, § 53).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2004 - 32446/96

  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, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, p. 2278, § 61; and Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, p. 26, § 34).

• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 22978/05

  Gäfgen - Folter bei polizeilicher Vernehmung; Kindesentführung; Geständnis trotz …

  Zum anderen ist dem Beschwerdeführer gegebenenfalls eine Entschädigung zuzuerkennen (siehe Vladimir Romanov, a.a.O., Rdnr. 79, und sinngemäß Aksoy, a.a.O., Rdnr. 98, und Abdülsamet Yaman ./. Türkei, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 32446/96, Rdnr. 53, 2. November 2004 (beide im Zusammenhang mit Artikel 13)) oder er muss zumindest die Möglichkeit haben, eine Entschädigung für den Schaden zu beantragen und zu erlangen, den er infolge der Misshandlung erlitten hat (…vgl. sinngemäß Nikolova und Velichkova, a.a.O., Rdnr. 56 (betreffend einen Verstoß gegen Artikel 2); Çamdereli, a.a.O., Rdnr. 29; und Yeter ./. Türkei, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 33750/03, Rdnr. 58, 13.
• EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03

  NIKOLOVA AND VELICHKOVA v. BULGARIA

  What is more, until 1999, well after the beginning of the criminal proceedings against them, both officers were still serving in the police, and one of them had even been promoted (he stopped being on the force only because he later chose to resign) (see paragraphs 19 and 20 above), whereas the Court's case-law says that where State agents have been charged with crimes involving ill-treatment, it is important that they be suspended from duty while being investigated or tried and be dismissed if convicted (see Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, no. 32446/96, § 55, 2 November 2004; and Türkmen, cited above, § 53).
• 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, 17.01.2012 - 12294/07

  ZONTUL c. GRECE

  Deuxièmement, le requérant doit le cas échéant percevoir une compensation (Vladimir Romanov, précité, § 79 et, mutatis mutandis, Aksoy c. Turquie, 18 décembre 1996, § 98, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-VI et Abdülsamet Yaman c. Turquie, no 32446/96, § 53, 2 novembre 2004 (ces deux arrêts dans le contexte de l'article 13)) ou, du moins, avoir la possibilité de demander et d'obtenir une indemnité pour le préjudice que lui a causé le mauvais traitement (comparer, mutatis mutandis, Nikolova et Velitchkova c. Bulgarie, no 7888/03, § 56, 20 décembre 2007, (concernant une violation de l'article 2) ; Çamdereli c. Turquie, précité, § 29 ; Yeter c. Turquie, no 33750/03, § 58, 13 janvier 2009 et Gäfgen, précité, § 116).
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 44614/07

  MILANOVIC v. SERBIA

  A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition of the investigation is implicit in this context (see, mutatis mutandis, Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2439, §§ 102-104) since a prompt response by the authorities 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 Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 136, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts); Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, no. 32446/96, § 60, 2 November 2004; and, mutatis mutandis, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 72, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 5886/15

  LINGURAR ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  Elle rappelle à ce propos avoir dit de manière réitérée que, lorsque des agents de l'État sont inculpés d'infractions impliquant des mauvais traitements, il importe qu'ils soient suspendus de leurs fonctions pendant l'instruction ou le procès et en soient démis en cas de condamnation (voir, par exemple, Abdülsamet Yaman c. Turquie, no 32446/96, § 55, 2 novembre 2004, Nikolova et Velitchkova c. Bulgarie, no 7888/03, § 63, 20 décembre 2007, et Ali et Ayse Duran c. Turquie, no 42942/02, § 64, 8 avril 2008).
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 44256/06

  TURAN CAKIR c. BELGIQUE

  A cet égard, la Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà jugé que lorsqu'un agent de l'Etat est accusé d'actes contraires à l'article 3, 1a procédure ou la condamnation ne sauraient être rendues caduques par une prescription, et l'application de mesures telles que l'amnistie ou la grâce ne saurait être autorisée (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Abdülsamet Yaman c. Turquie, no 32446/96, § 55, 2 novembre 2004 et Okkali c. Turquie, no 52067/99, § 76, 17 octobre 2006).