Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SIMSEK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 17, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 (substantive and procedural) Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 No violation of Art. 14 No violation of Art. 17 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.05.2004 - 35072/97
• EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 35072/97, 37194/97

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 35072/97

  The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its function and must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, 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).

  However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating a use of lethal force 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, in general, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 108-115, ECHR 2001-III).

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 35072/97

  In view of the foregoing, in keeping with the importance of Article 2 in a democratic society, the Court must subject allegations of a breach of this provision to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of the agents of the State who actually administered the force, but also all the surrounding circumstances, including such matters as the planning and control of the actions under examination (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 46, § 150).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 35072/97

  The obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 86, ECHR 1999-IV).

 
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 35072/97

  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, cited above, § 283), even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place.
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94

  HUGH JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 35072/97

  This is essential for maintaining public confidence and ensuring adherence to the rule of law and for preventing any appearance of tolerance of or collusion in unlawful acts (see, mutatis mutandis, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 108, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 35072/97

  Where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for those courts to assess the evidence before them (see Klaas v. Germany, judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, p. 17, § 29).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 35072/97

  Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, § 161, Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII, and Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, §§ 141-42, 16 July 2002).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 35072/97

  The applicants" complaints in this regard are therefore "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52, and Kaya v. Turkey, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, § 107).
• EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 27602/95

  ULKU EKINCI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 35072/97

  Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, § 161, Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII, and Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, §§ 141-42, 16 July 2002).

• EGMR, 25.08.2009 - 23458/02

  GIULIANI ET GAGGIO c. ITALIE

  Where lethal force is used in the course of a police or military operation, it is necessary to examine not merely whether the use of force was legitimate but also whether the operation was regulated and organised in such a way as to minimise to the greatest extent possible any risk to the life of the persons involved (see eg, Simsek and Others v. Turkey, nos. 35072/97 and 37194/97, § 106, 26 July 2005).

  One needs only to compare the present case with those examined by the Court in McCann and Others (cited above); Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus (9 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI); Makaratzis (cited above); Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria ([GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, ECHR 2005-VII); Simsek and Others v. Turkey (nos. 35072/97 and 37194/97, 26 July 2005); and ErdoÄ?an and Others v. Turkey (no. 19807/92, 25 April 2006).

• EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 23458/02

  GIULIANI c. ITALIE

  S'agissant de l'étendue de l'enquête, les requérants observent qu'à aucun moment il n'a été question d'évaluer la responsabilité des autorités dans son ensemble pour les défaillances dans la conduite des opérations et pour leur incapacité d'assurer un usage proportionné de la force pour disperser les manifestants (Simsek et autres c. Turquie, no 35072/97 et 37194/97, 26 juillet 2005).