Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 37308/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2015,55
EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 37308/05 (https://dejure.org/2015,55)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13.01.2015 - 37308/05 (https://dejure.org/2015,55)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13. Januar 2015 - 37308/05 (https://dejure.org/2015,55)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,55) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    UGUR v. TURKEY

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to ...

Sonstiges (2)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

    JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 37308/05
    The Court reiterates that the expressions "lawful" and "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" in Article 5 § 1 of the Convention essentially refer back to the national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX).
  • EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

    KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 37308/05
    For example, the Court held in the case of Batı and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§ 146-148, ECHR 2004-IV), which concerned serious ill-treatment to which thirteen applicants had been subjected by police officers, that in view of the very substantial delays in the conduct of the proceedings at first instance, the Turkish authorities could not be considered to have acted with sufficient promptness or reasonable diligence, with the result that the main perpetrators of acts of violence have enjoyed virtual impunity, despite the existence of incontrovertible evidence against them.
  • EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97

    STES COLAS EST AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 37308/05
    In response to the Government's argument concerning the costs and expenses relating to the proceedings at the national level, the Court reiterates that, if it finds that there has been a violation of the Convention, it may award the applicant the costs and expenses incurred before the national courts for the prevention or redress of the violation (see Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 56, ECHR 2002-III).
  • EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99

    OKKALI c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 37308/05
    In this connection, the Court will also have regard to the extent to which the national courts may be considered to have submitted the case before them to the scrupulous examination required by Article 3 of the Convention in order to maintain the deterrent power of the judicial system and the important role it plays in upholding the prohibition of ill-treatment (see, mutatis mutandis, Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 66, ECHR 2006-XII).
  • EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03

    NIKOLOVA AND VELICHKOVA v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 37308/05
    Thus, although the Court would grant substantial deference to the national courts in the choice of appropriate sanctions for ill-treatment and homicide by State agents, it would also exercise a certain power of review and intervene in cases of manifest disproportion between the gravity of the act and the punishment imposed (see Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 61, 20 December 2007).
  • EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 10036/03

    BEKTAS AND ÖZALP v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 37308/05
    The Court's examination of the applicants" complaint will therefore be limited to ascertaining whether or not the national authorities afforded appropriate and sufficient redress for the violation, and whether they have thus complied with their substantive and procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Külah and Koyuncu v. Turkey, no. 24827/05, § 38, 23 April 2013; Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, § 43, 27 May 2010; and Bektas and Özalp v. Turkey, no. 10036/03, § 48, 20 April 2010).
  • EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 23872/04

    FADIME AND TURAN KARABULUT v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 37308/05
    The Court's examination of the applicants" complaint will therefore be limited to ascertaining whether or not the national authorities afforded appropriate and sufficient redress for the violation, and whether they have thus complied with their substantive and procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Külah and Koyuncu v. Turkey, no. 24827/05, § 38, 23 April 2013; Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, § 43, 27 May 2010; and Bektas and Özalp v. Turkey, no. 10036/03, § 48, 20 April 2010).
  • EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 24827/05

    KÜLAH AND KOYUNCU v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 37308/05
    The Court's examination of the applicants" complaint will therefore be limited to ascertaining whether or not the national authorities afforded appropriate and sufficient redress for the violation, and whether they have thus complied with their substantive and procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Külah and Koyuncu v. Turkey, no. 24827/05, § 38, 23 April 2013; Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, § 43, 27 May 2010; and Bektas and Özalp v. Turkey, no. 10036/03, § 48, 20 April 2010).
  • EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

    BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 37308/05
    For example, the Court held in the case of Batı and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§ 146-148, ECHR 2004-IV), which concerned serious ill-treatment to which thirteen applicants had been subjected by police officers, that in view of the very substantial delays in the conduct of the proceedings at first instance, the Turkish authorities could not be considered to have acted with sufficient promptness or reasonable diligence, with the result that the main perpetrators of acts of violence have enjoyed virtual impunity, despite the existence of incontrovertible evidence against them.
  • EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 32715/19

    M.S. c. ITALIE

    La Cour a ainsi conclu à la violation des garanties procédurales de l'article 3 dans des affaires où la prescription avait joué parce que les autorités n'avaient pas agi avec la promptitude et la diligence requises (voir, entre autres, Bati et autres c. Turquie, nos 33097/96 et 57834/00, §§ 97 et 145-147, CEDH 2004-IV (extraits), Abdülsamet Yaman, précité, § 59, Yesil et Sevim c. Turquie, no 34738/04, §§ 38-42, 5 juin 2007, Erdogan Yilmaz et autres c. Turquie, no 19374/03, § 57, 14 octobre 2008, Erdal Aslan c. Turquie, nos 25060/02 et 1705/03, §§ 75-79, 2 décembre 2008, Paduret c. Moldova, no 33134/03, § 75, 5 janvier 2010, Karagöz et autres c. Turquie, nos 14352/05 et 2 autres, §§ 53-55, 13 juillet 2010, Savin c. Ukraine, no 34725/08, §§ 70-71, 16 février 2012, Ugur c. Turquie, no 37308/05, § 105, 13 janvier 2015, et Barovov c. Russie, no 9183/09, § 42, 15 juin 2021).
  • EGMR, 28.04.2015 - 54999/10

    MILIC ET NIKEZIC c. MONTÉNÉGRO

    Thus, in cases where the execution of the perpetrators" prison sentences was suspended (see Okkali v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 39, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, § 30, 27 May 2010; Nikolova and Velichkova, cited above, § 24, and Külah and Koyuncu v. Turkey, no. 24827/05, § 18, 23 April 2013); where the criminal trial became time-barred on account of the expiry of the statute of limitations after it had been established that the defendants had carried out the acts (Ugur v. Turkey, no. 37308/05, § 70, 13 January 2015); or where pronouncement of the judgment was suspended (Eski v. Turkey, no. 8354/04, § 18, 5 June 2012 and Kasap and Others v. Turkey, no. 8656/10, § 37, 14 January 2014), the Court has found substantive violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention on account of the impunity granted to those perpetrators.
  • EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 15397/02

    KAVAKLIOGLU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

    En l'espèce, bien qu'il ne soit pas accompagné de justificatifs ou de notes d'honoraires, le relevé des heures de travail et des dépens fourni par Me Bayraktar est pertinent, suffisamment ventilé et compréhensible pour appuyer cette prétention, comme la Cour l'a déjà admis dans nombre d'affaires (voir, par exemple, Guja c. Moldova [GC], no 14277/04, §§ 102 et 108, CEDH 2008, Ugur c. Turquie, no 37308/05, § 138, 13 janvier 2015, Benzer et autres c. Turquie, no 23502/06, § 249, 12 novembre 2013, et Gülbahar Özer et autres c. Turquie, no 44125/06, § 86, 2 juillet 2013).
  • EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 73346/11

    ÖZÇELIK c. TURQUIE

    La thèse de réhabilitation des délinquants que propose le Gouvernement (paragraphe 11 ci-dessus) ne saurait nullement légitimer une telle situation, d'autant qu'elle fait partie des trois principales pratiques procédurales adoptées en Turquie, et qui ont permis aux auteurs d'infractions - telle que celle dénoncée par la requérante - d'échapper à la peine (voir Ugur c. Turquie, no 37308/05, §§ 98-101, 13 janvier 2015, Külah et Koyuncu, précité, § 43, et Hasan Köse, précité, § 38).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht