Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AGDAS v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) No violation of Art. 2 with regard to death Violation of Art. 2 with regard to lack of effective investigation Not necessary to examine Art. 6 Violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 34592/97
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 34592/97

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 34592/97

  A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Yasa, cited above, pp. 2439-2440, §§ 102-104, Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, §§ 80-87 and 106, ECHR 1999-IV, Tanrıkulu, cited above, § 109, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, §§ 106-107, ECHR 2000-III).

  The case is materially different from a number of cases against Turkey which have been examined by both the former Commission and the Court, involving the killing of individuals by unknown perpetrators (see, for example, Yasa v. Turkey judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no.23763/94 judgment of 8 July 1999, Reports 1999-IV; Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no.22535/93, judgment of 28 March 2000, Reports 2000-III; Kılıç v. Turkey, no.22492/93, judgment of 28 March 2000, Reports 2000-III; Akkoç v. Turkey, nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, judgment of 10 October 2000, Reports 2000-X).

• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 34592/97

  The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first instance tribunal of facts, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).

  The Court recalls that in the normal course of events a criminal trial, with an adversarial procedure before an independent and impartial judge must be regarded as furnishing the strongest safeguards of an effective procedure for the finding of facts and the attribution of criminal responsibility (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 134, ECHR 2001-III).

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 34592/97

  The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia eye witness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death (see, concerning autopsies, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; concerning witnesses, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 109, ECHR 1999-IV; concerning forensic evidence, Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000).

  The case is materially different from a number of cases against Turkey which have been examined by both the former Commission and the Court, involving the killing of individuals by unknown perpetrators (see, for example, Yasa v. Turkey judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no.23763/94 judgment of 8 July 1999, Reports 1999-IV; Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no.22535/93, judgment of 28 March 2000, Reports 2000-III; Kılıç v. Turkey, no.22492/93, judgment of 28 March 2000, Reports 2000-III; Akkoç v. Turkey, nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, judgment of 10 October 2000, Reports 2000-X).

 
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93

  KILIÇ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 34592/97

  Nonetheless, it cannot be excluded, for example, that defects in an investigation may fundamentally undermine the ability of a court to determine responsibility for a death (see Salman, cited above, §§ 106-109 concerning inadequate autopsy procedures and Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, §§ 79-83, ECHR 2000-III, where there was no evidence presented to the trial court linking the suspect to the killing).

  The case is materially different from a number of cases against Turkey which have been examined by both the former Commission and the Court, involving the killing of individuals by unknown perpetrators (see, for example, Yasa v. Turkey judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no.23763/94 judgment of 8 July 1999, Reports 1999-IV; Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no.22535/93, judgment of 28 March 2000, Reports 2000-III; Kılıç v. Turkey, no.22492/93, judgment of 28 March 2000, Reports 2000-III; Akkoç v. Turkey, nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, judgment of 10 October 2000, Reports 2000-X).

• EGMR, 14.12.2000 - 22676/93

  GÜL v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 34592/97

  The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia eye witness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death (see, concerning autopsies, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; concerning witnesses, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 109, ECHR 1999-IV; concerning forensic evidence, Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000).

  This term indicates that a stricter and more compelling test of necessity must be employed than that applicable when determining whether State action is "necessary in a democratic society" under paragraph 2 of Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention: the force used must be shown to be strictly proportionate to the achievement of the permitted aims (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1985, Series A no. 324, p. 46 §§ 148-149; Gül v. Turkey, no.22676/93, judgment of 14 December 2000, § 77).

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 34592/97

  This term indicates that a stricter and more compelling test of necessity must be employed than that applicable when determining whether State action is "necessary in a democratic society" under paragraph 2 of Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention: the force used must be shown to be strictly proportionate to the achievement of the permitted aims (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1985, Series A no. 324, p. 46 §§ 148-149; Gül v. Turkey, no.22676/93, judgment of 14 December 2000, § 77).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 34592/97

  For an investigation into alleged unlawful killing by State agents to be effective, it may generally be regarded as necessary for the persons responsible for and carrying out the investigation to be independent from those implicated in the events (see Güleç v. Turkey, judgment of 27 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, §§ 81-82, and OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 34592/97

  The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia eye witness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death (see, concerning autopsies, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; concerning witnesses, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 109, ECHR 1999-IV; concerning forensic evidence, Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 34592/97

  They cannot leave it to the initiative of the next of kin either to lodge a formal complaint or to take responsibility for the conduct of any investigative procedures (see, for example, mutatis mutandis, Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 34592/97

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 32, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 283, ECHR 2001-VII) even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place.
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 58447/00

  ZAVOLOKA c. LETTONIE

  L'évolution importante de la jurisprudence concernant l'article 13 combiné avec les articles 2 et 3 dans les cas où les violations alléguées peuvent être imputées à des agents de l'État, du moins de prime abord (voir, parmi d'autres, Buldan c. Turquie, no 28298/95, 20 avril 2004, AÄ?das c. Turquie, no 34592/97, 27 juillet 2004) demeure limitée à ce type particulier d'affaires.