Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  I.G. v. TÜRKIYE

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  I.G. v. TURKEY

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (23)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 10755/13

  UZUN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 32887/19

  Where there is no legal interest in holding a retrial, the Constitutional Court may award damages or invite the applicant to apply to a court of general jurisdiction for compensation (see Uzun v. Turkey (dec.), no. 10755/13, § 25, 30 April 2013).

  Relying on the Court's findings in Uzun v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 10755/13, 30 April 2013), the Government submitted that the individual application procedure before the Constitutional Court was an effective remedy in respect of Convention complaints and reiterated that the Constitutional Court's practice of affording redress either in the form of compensation, or in the form of a ruling for the reopening of proceedings - or both, where appropriate - was in line with the Court's own practice.

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 32887/19

  The promptness of the authorities' reaction to the complaints is an important factor (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 133 et seq., ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

  COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 32887/19

  Indeed, the reopening of criminal proceedings that have been terminated on account of the expiry of the limitation period may raise issues concerning legal certainty (see Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96 and 4 others, § 146, ECHR 2000-VII) and may thus have a bearing on a defendant's rights under Article 7 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kononov v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04, §§ 228-33, ECHR 2010).

• EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 27684/17

  Türkei muss Deniz Yücel für Untersuchungshaft entschädigen

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 32887/19

  v. Turkey, cited above, § 143, and see also, mutatis mutandis, İlker Deniz Yücel v. Türkiye, no. 27684/17, § 73, 25 January 2022 and the authorities cited therein, where the Court concluded that the applicant could still claim to be a victim in view of the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Turkish Constitutional Court).
• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24724/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 32887/19

  It notes in this connection that general principles emerging from its case-law on the issue of alleged ill-treatment committed by private persons have primarily been formulated with a view to persons having attained the age of criminal responsibility, the determination of which remains a matter with the States' margin of appreciation, especially in view of the absence of a clear common European standard as to the minimum age of criminal responsibility (see, mutatis mutandis, T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, § 72, 16 December 1999).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 32887/19

  A decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not, in principle, sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI, and Scordino, cited above, § 180).
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  DENIS VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 32887/19

  The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, such as by taking witness statements and gathering forensic evidence, and a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 100, 17 December 2009, with further references).
• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99

  OKKALI c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 32887/19

  In such cases the proceedings as a whole, including the trial stage, must meet the requirements of the prohibition enshrined in Article 3. This means that the domestic judicial authorities must on no account be prepared to let the physical or psychological suffering inflicted go unpunished (see Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 65, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts), and Çelik v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 39326/02, § 34, 27 May 2010).
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03

  SHILBERGS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 32887/19

  These circumstances include the value of the award judged in the light of the ordinary living standards and the general level of incomes in the State concerned, and the fact that the remedy in the national system is closer and more accessible than an application to the Court (see Scordino, cited above, §§ 206 and 268, and Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, § 72, 17 December 2009).
• EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 26692/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 32887/19

  The amount awarded by the Constitutional Court, however, is substantially lower than the amounts awarded by the Court in other cases involving deficiencies in an investigation and/or a prosecution of cases of sexual abuse committed by private individuals (see, for example, the amounts awarded in M.C. v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 194; P.M. v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 74; C.A.S. and C.S. v. Romania, no. 26692/05, 20 March 2012, § 92; D.J. v. Croatia, cited above, § 112; G.U. v. Turkey, cited above, § 88; N.Ç.
• EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 34368/02

  NARDONE c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 38281/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 38588/21

  X v. GREECE
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 39326/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.10.2021 - 41086/12

  A.P. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 6780/18

  ROTH v. GERMANY and 1 other application
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 50231/13

  SABALIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 23788/06

  BECOVA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 40828/12

  MIRONOVAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 7711/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 39257/17

  Z v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 9183/09

  BAROVOV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.02.2025 - 40733/22

  X v. CYPRUS

  Rn. 90 The Court considers that although the respondent State did not raise an objection in relation to the applicant's victim status this issue calls for consideration by the Court in view of the Supreme Court's findings (see paragraphs 67-72 above) as these are closely linked to the question of the effectiveness of the investigation (see, for example, D.J. v. Croatia, no. 42418/10, § 68, 24 July 2012; İ.G. v. Türkiye, no. 32887/19, § 29, 27 August 2024; and, mutatis mutandis, Döner and Others v. Turkey, no. 29994/02, § 81, 7 March 2017).
• EGMR - 30251/23 (anhängig)

  KARATAS AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE

  In view of the Constitutional Court's judgment of 1 March 2023 (No: 2018/25634), can the applicants still claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, as regards the alleged breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 115-16, ECHR 2010; see also, mutatis mutandis, İ.G. v. Türkiye, no. 32887/19, §§ 42-49, 27 August 2024)?.
• EGMR - 25917/22 (anhängig)

  YASAR v. TÜRKIYE

  In view of the Constitutional Court's judgment and the amount awarded to the applicant by that court in respect of non-pecuniary damage, can the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34 (see İ.G. v. Türkiye, no. 32887/19, §§ 42-49, 27 August 2024)?.