Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ADALI v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 34, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) No violation of Art. 2 as regards the killing of the applicant's husband Violation of Art. 2 as regards the failure to carry out an adequate and effective investigation No violation of Art. 3 8 ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 31.01.2002 - 38187/97
• EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 38187/97

Wird zitiert von ... (22)Zitiert selbst (25)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 38187/97

  A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Yaşa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, 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).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 38187/97

  A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Yaşa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, 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).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 38187/97

  However, as it has held in previous cases, these findings do not preclude the complaint in relation to Article 2 from being an "arguable" one 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; Kaya, cited above, pp. 330-31, § 107; and Yaşa, cited above, p. 2442, § 113).

• EKMR, 16.07.1980 - 8440/78

  CHRISTIAN AGAINST FASCISM AND RACISM v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 38187/97

  As such this right covers both private meetings and meetings in public thoroughfares as well as static meetings and public processions; in addition, it can be exercised by individuals and those organising the assembly (Rassemblement jurassien and Unité jurassienne, cited above, at p. 119, and Christians against Racism and Fascism v. the United Kingdom, no. 8440/78, Commission decision of 16 July 1980, DR 21, p. 138, at p. 148).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 38187/97

  I should like to point out that only a week before the adoption of the present judgment, the very same First Section of the Court awarded EUR 20, 000 to the applicants in respect of their costs and expenses in the case of Akkum and Others v. Turkey (no. 21894/93, 24 March 2005).
• EKMR, 10.10.1979 - 8191/78

  RASSEMBLEMENT JURASSIEN AND UNITE JURASSIENNE v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 38187/97

  Thus, it should not be interpreted restrictively (see Djavit An v. Turkey, cited above, § 56; G. v. Germany, no. 13079/87, Commission decision of 6 March 1989, DR 60, p. 256; Rassemblement jurassien and Unité jurassienne v. Switzerland, no. 8191/78, Commission decision of 10 October 1979, DR 17, p. 93; and Rai and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 25522/94, Commission decision of 6 April 1995, DR 81-A, p. 146).
• EKMR, 06.04.1995 - 25522/94

  RAI, ALLMOND ET "NEGOTIATE NOW" c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 38187/97

  Thus, it should not be interpreted restrictively (see Djavit An v. Turkey, cited above, § 56; G. v. Germany, no. 13079/87, Commission decision of 6 March 1989, DR 60, p. 256; Rassemblement jurassien and Unité jurassienne v. Switzerland, no. 8191/78, Commission decision of 10 October 1979, DR 17, p. 93; and Rai and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 25522/94, Commission decision of 6 April 1995, DR 81-A, p. 146).
• EGMR, 23.05.2001 - 25316/94

  DENIZCI ET AUTRES c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 38187/97

  Bearing in mind the above findings, it is worth pointing that in the case of Denizci and Others v. Cyprus (nos. 25316-25321/94 and 27207/95, ECHR 2001-V), which concerned, among other issues, the killing of one of the applicants' son and his friend in southern Cyprus, the Court held that the investigation was adequate and sufficient because the local police went to the scene, a plan of the incident site was drawn up and a list of the objects found established.
• EGMR, 09.05.2003 - 27244/95

  TEPE v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 38187/97

  In the light of its established case-law in similar cases (see Tepe v. Turkey, no. 27244/95, § 212, 9 May 2003; Tekdağ v. Turkey, no. 27699/95, § 117, 15 January 2004; and Djavit An, cited above, § 84) and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court awards EUR 20, 000 plus any tax that may be chargeable, such sum to be converted into Turkish liras (TRL) at the rate applicable at the date of settlement and paid into the applicant's bank account.
• EGMR, 15.01.2004 - 27699/95

  TEKDAG v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 38187/97

  In the light of its established case-law in similar cases (see Tepe v. Turkey, no. 27244/95, § 212, 9 May 2003; Tekdağ v. Turkey, no. 27699/95, § 117, 15 January 2004; and Djavit An, cited above, § 84) and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court awards EUR 20, 000 plus any tax that may be chargeable, such sum to be converted into Turkish liras (TRL) at the rate applicable at the date of settlement and paid into the applicant's bank account.
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94

  HUGH JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95
• EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 20652/92

  DJAVIT AN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 14.12.2000 - 22676/93

  GÜL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.01.2002 - 62566/00

  HAZAR, TEKTAS, BEKIROGLU, PEKOL, BOZKUS, TEKTAS, ATMAN, ISIK, AKSUCU, DOSTER, …
• EKMR, 15.05.1995 - 23654/94

  LAÇiN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94

  AKDENIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 36925/07

  GÜZELYURTLU AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS AND TURKEY

  In the vast majority of cases where the Court has had to rule on complaints under the procedural aspect of Article 2, the death had occurred within the jurisdiction of the Contracting State at issue, either within its national territory (see, among many other authorities, Rantsev in respect of Cyprus), in an area under the effective control of that State (see Adalı v. Turkey, no. 38187/97, 31 March 2005), or on board craft and vessels registered in, or flying the flag of, that State (see Bakanova v. Lithuania, no. 11167/12, § 63, 31 May 2016).
• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10

  HUSEYNOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  However, for the Court, the required evidentiary standard of proof for the purposes of the Convention is that of "beyond reasonable doubt", and 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; Adalı v. Turkey, no. 38187/97, § 216, 31 March 2005; and Giuliani and Gaggio, cited above, § 181).

  [7] See Adalı v. Turkey, no. 38187/97, 31 March 2005.

• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 10877/04

  SERGEY KUZNETSOV v. RUSSIA

  In view of the essential nature of freedom of assembly and its close relationship with democracy there must be convincing and compelling reasons to justify an interference with this right (see Ouranio Toxo v. Greece, no. 74989/01, § 36, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), and Adalı v. Turkey, no. 38187/97, § 267, 31 March 2005, with further references).

• EGMR, 10.01.2019 - 65286/13

  KHADIJA ISMAYILOVA v. AZERBAIJAN and 1 other application

  The Court has had to deal with a number of cases concerning respondent States' obligations to investigate criminal offences against journalists (see, for examples, Adalı v. Turkey, no. 38187/97, § 231, 31 March 2005; Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, §§ 8-15 and 179, ECHR 2005-XI; Uzeyir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 54204/08, § 52, 29 January 2015; Huseynova v. Azerbaijan, no. 10653/10, § 115, 13 April 2017; and Mazepa and Others v. Russia, no. 15086/07, § 73, 17 July 2018).
• EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28940/95

  FOKA v. TURKEY

  The Court, accordingly, considers that when as in the instant case an act of the "TRNC" authorities is in compliance with laws in force within the territory of northern Cyprus, those acts should in principle be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention (see, in this regard, the Djavit An v. Turkey judgment (no. 20652/92, 20 February 2003) in which the finding of a violation of the applicant's rights under Article 11 of the Convention was based on the absence of any laws or measures in the "TRNC" regulating the issuance of permits to Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus to cross the green-line into southern Cyprus; see also, Adalı v. Turkey, no. 38187/97, §§ 273-274, 31 March 2005).
• EGMR, 04.05.2017 - 47095/09

  MUSTAFAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Yaşa v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, §§ 102-104, Reports 1998-VI, and Adalı v. Turkey, no. 38187/97, § 224, 31 March 2005).
• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 46712/15

  BERKMAN v. RUSSIA

  In view of the essential nature of freedom of assembly and its close relationship with democracy, there must be convincing and compelling reasons to justify an interference with this right (see Adalı v. Turkey, no. 38187/97, § 267, 31 March 2005; Ouranio Toxo, cited above, § 36; and Emin Huseynov v. Azerbaijan, no. 59135/09, § 97, 7 May 2015).
• EGMR, 07.05.2015 - 59135/09

  EMIN HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In view of the essential nature of freedom of assembly and its close relationship with democracy, there must be convincing and compelling reasons to justify an interference with this right (see Ouranio Toxo v. Greece, no. 74989/01, § 36, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), and Adali v. Turkey, no. 38187/97, § 267, 31 March 2005, with further references).
• EGMR, 28.02.2008 - 68020/01

  DEMEBUKOV v. BULGARIA

  In view of the aforesaid, the Court has difficulties to accept that the applicant's complaint regarding the fairness of the criminal proceedings conducted in absentia has been submitted on time (see Adah v. Turkey, no. 38187/97, § 195, 31 March 2005).
• EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 41964/98

  CENNET AYHAN AND MEHMET SALIH AYHAN v. TURKEY

  The Court observes that there is no causal link between the matters held to constitute a violation of the Convention and the pecuniary damage allegedly suffered by the applicants (see Tepe v. Turkey, no. 27244/95, § 212, 9 May 2003; and Adalı v. Turkey, no. 38187/97, § 284, 31 March 2005).
• EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 9117/04

  NOSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 44363/02

  RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02

  KYRIACOU TSIAKKOURMAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 34528/13

  MAHADDINOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 47137/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 35082/04

  MAKHMUDOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 10519/03

  BARANKEVICH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.11.2016 - 8937/09

  GASIMOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 75522/01

  MIKHANIV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 7864/06

  CAKIR v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 28736/05

  ALIYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 63067/12

  MUNTEANU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA