Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ACAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 (killing and wounding) Violation of Art. 2 (failure to investigate) Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 No violation of Art. 8 Pecuniary damage - financial awards Non-pecuniary damage - financial awards Costs and expenses ...

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 36088/97

  The Court recalls that there must be a causal connection between the damage alleged by the applicants and violation of the Convention found and that this may, if appropriate, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see, amongst other authorities, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (Article 50), judgment of 13 June 1994, Series A no. 285-C, pp.
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 36088/97

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings also requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, pp. 45-46, §§ 146-47, and Avsar, cited above, § 390).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 36088/97

  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, for example, 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, 24.05.2005 - 36088/97

  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, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; concerning witnesses, for example, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 109, ECHR 1999-IV; concerning forensic evidence, for example, Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 36088/97

  There must also be a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition implicit in this context (see Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, pp. 2439-40, § 102-04, Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, §§ 80, 87, 106, ECHR 1999-IV, Tanrıkulu, cited above, § 109, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 36088/97

  While this does not exclude an examination of the complaint under Article 2, the Court has held that it is only in exceptional circumstances that physical ill-treatment by State officials which does not result in death may disclose a violation of that Article, complaints of such ill-treatment falling to be examined in general under Article 3. In this regard, the degree and type of force used and the intention or aim behind the use of force may, among other factors, be relevant in assessing whether in a particular case the State agents" actions in inflicting injury short of death are such as to bring the facts within the scope of the safeguard afforded by Article 2 of the Convention, having regard to the object and purpose pursued by that Article (Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 76, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 36088/97

  There must also be a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition implicit in this context (see Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, pp. 2439-40, § 102-04, Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, §§ 80, 87, 106, ECHR 1999-IV, Tanrıkulu, cited above, § 109, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 36088/97

  It observes that there was a judicial determination of the facts of the instant case at domestic level (paragraph 63 above) and that no material has been adduced in the course of the Strasbourg proceedings which could call into question the findings of fact of the Denizli Assize Court in their decision of 25 May 2003 and lead the Court to depart from them (see Klaas v. Germany, judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, pp. 17-18, § 30, and Makaratzis, cited above, § 47).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 36088/97

  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, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 36088/97

  The relevant domestic legislation and practice is outlined in the Court's Avsar v. Turkey judgment (no. 25657/94, §§ 261-81, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93

  KILIÇ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 14.12.2000 - 22676/93

  GÜL v. TURKEY

• EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 77144/01

  Rechtssache C. und T. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Aus einem Vorfall, der nicht zum Tod führt, kann sich jedoch nur unter ganz außergewöhnlichen Umständen eine Verletzung von Artikel 2 der Konvention ergeben (siehe Rechtssachen Acar u. a. ./. Türkei, Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 36088/97 und 38417/97, Rdnr. 77, 24. Mai 2005;… Makaratzis ./. Griechenland [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 50385/99, Rdnr. 51, EGMR 2004-XI;… und Tzekov ./. Bulgarien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 45500/99, Rdnr. 40, 23. Februar 2006).
• EGMR, 29.08.2023 - 25276/15

  VERZILOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  36088/97 and 38417/97, §§ 83-86, 24 May 2005; and Seyfettin Acar and Others v. Turkey, no. 30742/03, § 35, 6 October 2009).
• EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 12938/07

  CERF v. TURKEY

  The Court cannot, contrary to the applicant's submissions, find that the preliminary investigations conducted after January 2000 and the subsequent trials proved incapable of identifying and prosecuting the perpetrators of the killings (see, mutatis mutandis, Acar and Others v. Turkey, nos. 36088/97 and 38417/97, § 90, 24 May 2005).

 
• EGMR, 23.02.2006 - 45500/99

  TZEKOV c. BULGARIE

  Dans pratiquement tous les cas, lorsqu'une personne est agressée ou maltraitée par des policiers ou des militaires, ses griefs doivent être examinés plutôt sous l'angle de l'article 3 de la Convention (Ilhan c. Turquie [GC], no 22277/93, § 76, CEDH 2000-VII ; Berktay c. Turquie, no 22493/93, § 154, 1er mars 2001; Acar et autres c. Turquie, nos 36088/97 et 38417/97, § 77, 24 mai 2005).
• EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 77370/16

  I.I. AND M.S. v. BULGARIA

  36088/97 and 38417/97, § 77, 24 May 2005; and Saso Gorgiev v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 49382/06, § 36, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 33614/10

  ACAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  36088/97 and 38417/97, 27 November 2001).