Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BAYRAM et YILDIRIM contre la TURQUIE
Art. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
Irrecevable (französisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (155) Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99
PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97
However, special considerations could apply in exceptional cases where an applicant avails himself or relies on an apparently existing remedy and only subsequently becomes aware of circumstances which render the remedy ineffective, it is appropriate to take as the start of the six month period the date when he first became aware or ought to have become aware of those circumstances (see Edwards v. the United Kingdom decision, application no. 46477/99, unpublished). - EKMR, 15.05.1995 - 23654/94
LAÇiN v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97
Furthermore, it ought also to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being under any uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (see application no. 23654/94, Commission decision of 15 May 1995, Decisions and Reports (DR) 81, p. 76).
- EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 5418/15
Bootsunglück vor Farmakonisi: Griechenland muss Flüchtlinge entschädigen
Dès lors, les requérants sont censés prendre des mesures pour se tenir au courant de l'état d'avancement de l'enquête, ou de sa stagnation, et introduire leurs requêtes avec la célérité voulue dès lors qu'ils savent, ou devraient savoir, qu'aucune enquête pénale effective n'est menée (Bulut et Yavuz c. Turquie (déc.), no 73065/01, 28 mai 2002, et Bayram et Yildirim c. Turquie (déc.), no 38587/97, CEDH 2002-III). - EGMR, 12.04.2016 - 12060/12
M.C. AND A.C. v. ROMANIA
It was due to their own negligence that they had failed to act more expeditiously (they refer to Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III).The Court has already held that, in cases concerning an investigation into ill-treatment, as in those concerning an investigation into the suspicious death of a relative, applicants are expected to take steps to keep track of the investigation's progress, or lack thereof, and to lodge their applications with due expedition once they are, or should have become, aware of the lack of any effective criminal investigation (see Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III).
- EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06
[ENG]
The Court has held in cases concerning the obligation to investigate under Article 2 of the Convention that where a death has occurred, applicant relatives are expected to keep track of the progress of the investigation and to lodge their applications with due expedition once they are, or should have become, aware of the lack of any effective investigation (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III; and Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.The Court has held in cases concerning the obligation to investigate under Article 2 of the Convention that where a death has occurred, the victim's relatives are expected to keep track of the progress of the investigation and to lodge their application with due expedition once they are, or should have become, aware of the lack of any effective investigation (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III; and Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.
- EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 27872/03
[ENG]
Referring in particular to the decision in the case of Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III), the Government submitted that the applicants, who claim that the investigation was ineffective, should have introduced their application within a reasonable time after the bodies of their relatives had been found in April 1994.The Court noted that it had held in the case of Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III), referred to by the Government, and in a number of other similar cases that, if no domestic remedies were available or if they were judged to be ineffective, the six-month time-limit in principle ran from the date of the act complained of.
- EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 3598/03
MERYEM ÇELIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Relying on the Court's decisions in the cases of Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III); Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002); and Hazar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), nos.Furthermore, it ought also to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being under any uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (see Bulut and Yavuz (dec.), cited above and Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III).
- EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 37869/08
VATANDAS c. TURQUIE
Se référant aux décisions Bayram et Yıldırım c. Turquie ((déc.), no 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III), et Bulut et Yavuz c. Turquie ((déc.) no 73065/01, 28 mai 2002), il invite ainsi la Cour à déclarer la requête irrecevable aux motifs que le requérant n'a pas respecté le délai de six mois et qu'il n'a pas fait preuve de diligence quant à la poursuite de ses griefs.Il faut rappeler que les intéressés sont effectivement censés prendre des mesures pour se tenir informés de l'état d'avancement de l'enquête, ou de sa stagnation, et introduire leurs requêtes avec la célérité voulue dès lors qu'ils savent, ou devraient savoir, qu'aucune enquête pénale effective n'est menée (Bayram et Yıldırım c. Turquie (déc.), no 38587/97, CEDH 2002-III, et Bulut et Yavuz c. Turquie (déc.), no 73065/01, 28 mai 2002).
- EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 35801/03
MASSON c. FRANCE
La Cour rappelle que la règle des six mois, prescrite à l'article 35 § 1 de la Convention, a pour objet d'assurer la sécurité juridique et de veiller à ce que les affaires litigieuses au regard de la Convention soient examinées dans un délai raisonnable, ainsi que de protéger les autorités et autres personnes concernées de l'incertitude dans laquelle elles seraient laissées, du fait de l'écoulement prolongé du temps (voir Bulut et Yavuz c. Turquie (déc.), no 73065/01, 28 mai 2002, et Bayram et Yıldırım c. Turquie (déc.), no 38587/97, CEDH 2002-III).En pareil cas, la période de six mois peut être calculée à partir de cette date (voir, entre autres, Bayram et Yıldırım c. Turquie (déc), no 38587/97, 29 janvier 2002, Bulut et Yavuz, précité, et Paul et Audrey Edwards c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 46477/99, 7 juin 2001).
- EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 10/10
BRUNNER v. TURKEY
In such a situation, the six-month period might be calculated from the time when the applicant becomes aware, or should have become aware, of these circumstances (see Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III; and Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. - EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 73065/01
BULUT and YAVUZ v. TURKEY
If, as the applicants allege, they did not become aware of this situation until October 2000, the Court considers that that was due to their own negligence (see Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey, (dec.) no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002). - EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 23016/04
[ENG]
In such a situation, the six-month period might be calculated from the time when the applicant becomes aware, or should have become aware, of these circumstances (see Hazar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 62566/00, 10 January 2002; Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; and Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III). - EGMR, 28.10.2004 - 48173/99
Y.B. ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 43478/11
HAMBARDZUMYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02
NARIN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 1451/10
SINISTAJ v. MONTENEGRO ant 2 other applications
- EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 8460/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 44425/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 46744/07
CHARALAMBOUS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 26.02.2008 - 43443/98
MANSUROGLU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 26.05.2005 - 46231/99
AYDIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 51967/99
TEREN AKSAKAL v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 57952/00
ELSANOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 21135/09
IREZIYEVY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 10015/10
BASAR ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 66641/10
RANÐELOVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 40146/11
KANAKIS c. GRECE
- EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 21099/06
[FRE]
- EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 25060/02
ERDAL ASLAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 28864/18
GRIBBEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 32036/13
TRESKAVICA v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 13660/05
[FRE]
- EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 35802/05
[FRE]
- EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 53489/99
KAVAK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 13635/04
KINIS c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 29753/16
CHONG AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 80960/12
ZDJELAR AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 7524/06
[FRE]
- EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 33898/11
FINDIK v. TURKEY AND OMER V. TURKEY
- EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54415/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 22746/03
ÖLMEZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 2429/13
SARi v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 06.02.2020 - 40394/10
SAKVARELIDZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 39468/13
OBAJDIN v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 38882/13
OPACIC AND GODIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 67437/09
Russland muss Tschetschenen 260.000 Euro zahlen
- EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 44814/07
BUDAK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 37204/02
GUSAR v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND ROMANIA
- EGMR, 26.02.2013 - 24589/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 53073/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 30.08.2011 - 51987/07
[FRE]
- EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 40047/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 04.11.2021 - 32427/16
PETROSYAN v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 11.04.2019 - 38089/12
SARWARI ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52577/15
TODOROVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 50203/12
ORIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 3575/05
EMRAH AYDINLAR ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 37147/02
CHIRITA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 29453/02
R. C. gegen Deutschland
- EGMR - 54999/10 (anhängig)
[ENG]
- EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 72080/12
SHAVADZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 58026/12
AKIN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 48176/11
TORLAK v. TURKEY and 4 other applications
- EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 27791/09
DIDOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 3534/06
INCIN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 79768/12
KUKAVICA v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 75504/12
RADICANIN AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 5676/13
GOJEVIC-ZRNIC AND MANCIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 72254/11
BOGDANOVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 22026/10
AKHVLEDIANI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 40787/10
TASÇI AND DUMAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 30689/05
KIRLANGIÇ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 1099/08
MLADENOVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 15.01.2004 - 54919/00
ICOZ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 02.09.2003 - 43443/98
MANSUROGLU contre la TURQUIE
- EGMR - 1099/08 (anhängig)
[ENG]
- EGMR, 15.11.2022 - 3934/17
SASKIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 61016/16
?žENGÜL AND NAYMAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 28.04.2020 - 20436/11
ISRAILOV AND BAKAYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 4800/10
SHAVLOKHOVA v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 520/12
BESTAS c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 4159/15
KAMENICA AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 48409/06
SAVUN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 24723/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 56094/12
GRUBIC v. CROATIA and 7 other applications
- EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 33614/10
ACAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 59623/08
EMIN AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS
- EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 20106/06
MARTA JULARIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 43422/04
COSTAS & THOMAS ORPHANOU v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 45533/05
[FRE]
- EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 13745/02
OZTURK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 34542/03
YILDIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 24.06.2004 - 50193/99
DOGAN ET KESER c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 01.04.2003 - 39813/98
ÖNDER contre la TURQUIE
- EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 28298/95
BULDAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 29.11.2022 - 79650/16
ARSLAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 07.10.2021 - 5748/17
RYZHOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.09.2020 - 42235/19
ÖLMEZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 9477/12
AKBULUT v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 56120/13
BAYSULTANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 28361/14
NAUMOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.09.2017 - 4078/15
FEJZIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 49448/08
MANUKIAN v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 62101/12
KIZILÖZ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 48528/11
IS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 6629/10
UYSAL c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 1891/10
SCIABICA c. ITALIE ET ALLEMAGNE
- EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 37678/10
SUBARI AND KOBIDZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 27631/12
VARTIC (V) v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 714/08
BATMAZ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 36732/08
MITRANIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 31248/09
HAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 04.09.2012 - 3424/09
DURSUN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 2913/04
PIKOVÁ c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 45503/99
KAREFYLLIDES ET AL v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 16.09.2008 - 8870/02
BERCARU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 11381/02
TONKA ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 29098/03
KIZIL c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 55195/00
TAGAC c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 08.09.2005 - 47279/99
YOSIFOV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 49503/99
HALIL DOGAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 22.01.2004 - 44054/98
IRFAN KAYA c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 47757/99
CAVUSOGLU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 40999/98
YURTDAS ET INCI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 03.12.2002 - 37446/97
KARA et AUTRES contre la TURQUIE
- EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 63181/00
KARAYIGIT v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 40994/98
KATAR, ÖZCAN et AYTU contre la TURQUIE
- EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 43926/98
EPÖZDEMIR v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 04.05.2002 - 43925/98
KARAKAS and YESILIRMAK v. TURKEY
- EGMR - 34782/10 (anhängig)
DEMCHUK AND SHPARTAK v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 449/12
AKTAS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 29.08.2017 - 27240/09
GISAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 11182/10
DAVITASHVILI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 12744/13
LONCAR v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 36470/06
PETROVIC AND GAJIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 19985/13
SPATA v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 23590/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 28883/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 17502/07
AVOTINS c. LETTONIE
- EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 45631/04
SAGLAM ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 56363/00
BIYAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 05.10.2004 - 44698/98
SINCAR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 09.03.2004 - 40299/98
BOZTAS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 51289/99
OZULKU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 42428/98
EREN et AUTRES contre la TURQUIE
- EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 31865/96
Ö.Ö. et S.M. contre la TURQUIE
- EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 39978/98
OGRAS et AUTRES contre la TURQUIE
- EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 19256/13
VULETIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 16.09.2008 - 15630/05
RUZICKOVÁ c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 71998/01
AYDIN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 75527/01
UCAK ET KARGILI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 16.03.2004 - 28290/95
GUNGOR contre la TURQUIE
- EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 27115/12
VESELINOVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 39445/08
YÜKSEL c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 31848/11
ÖZSÜREN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 10.10.2002 - 70835/01
SINCAR v. TURKEY
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".