Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ÇAKMAKÇI v. TURKEY

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ÇAKMAKÇI v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 3952/11

  Even if the Convention does not as such guarantee a right to have criminal proceedings instituted against third parties, the Court has said on a number of occasions that the effective judicial system required by Article 2 may, and under certain circumstances must, include recourse to the criminal law (see, for instance, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 12.04.2016 - 64602/12

  R.B. v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 3952/11

  The Court next considers that it is not necessary to examine whether the applicant made proper use of civil remedies, in addition to the criminal remedies he had already sought, in order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement prescribed by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as alleged by the Government, as the present complaints are in any event inadmissible for the reasons set out below (see, mutatis mutandis, R.B. v. Hungary, no. 64602/12, § 42, 12 April 2016).
• EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 21899/02

  ABDULLAH YILMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 3952/11

  In the context of individuals undergoing compulsory military service, the Court has previously had occasion to emphasise that, as with persons in custody, conscripts are within the exclusive control of the authorities of the State, since any events in the army lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them (see Abdullah Yılmaz v. Turkey, no. 21899/02, § 56, 17 June 2008, and the cases cited therein, and Tikhonova v. Russia, no. 13596/05, § 68, 30 April 2014).

• EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  MIKHNO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 3952/11

  Even supposing for the sake of argument that there was no primary or secondary legislation at the material time specifically concerning the safe storage and handling of munitions on military grounds or the training of soldiers on such matters, the Court considers, on the basis of the foregoing, that the absence of general legislative guidelines had been compensated for by other specific instructions and measures by the relevant authorities (see Mikhno v. Ukraine, no. 32514/12, § 127, 1 September 2016), which appeared sufficiently effective to protect the lives and safety of military personnel, if duly implemented.
• EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 611/12

  YILMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 3952/11

  In the view of the Court, it may raise an issue under Article 2 of the Convention if a time-limit for instituting proceedings for compensation for damage starts to run at a moment when the applicant was not or could not have been aware of the claim or of the factual basis for making such claim, as it may unduly prevent the applicant from accessing such remedy (see, mutatis mutandis, Eşim v. Turkey, no. 59601/09, §§ 21-27, 17 September 2013, and Sefer Yılmaz and Meryem Yılmaz v. Turkey, no. 611/12, §§ 62-74, 17 November 2015).
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 75588/01

  ALKIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 3952/11

  The Court notes in this connection that the fact that the applicant fortuitously survived the explosion does not prevent an examination of his complaints under Article 2, since the explosion in the instant case was potentially lethal and put his life at risk (see Alkın v. Turkey, no. 75588/01, § 29, 13 October 2009).
• EGMR, 30.04.2014 - 13596/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 3952/11

  In the context of individuals undergoing compulsory military service, the Court has previously had occasion to emphasise that, as with persons in custody, conscripts are within the exclusive control of the authorities of the State, since any events in the army lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them (see Abdullah Yılmaz v. Turkey, no. 21899/02, § 56, 17 June 2008, and the cases cited therein, and Tikhonova v. Russia, no. 13596/05, § 68, 30 April 2014).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 22677/10

  KURSUN v. TURKEY

  The Court further reiterates that the right of access to court under Article 6 § 1 may be impaired if a time-limit for instituting compensation proceedings for damages starts to run at a moment when an applicant was not or could not have been aware of the claim or of the factual basis for making such claim (see, mutatis mutandis, Eşim v. Turkey, no. 59601/09, §§ 21-27, 17 September 2013; Sefer Yılmaz and Meryem Yılmaz v. Turkey, no. 611/12, §§ 62-74, 17 November 2015; Çakmakçı v. Turkey (dec.), no. 3952/11, § 44, 2 May 2017; and Teker v. Turkey (dec.), no. 2272/11, § 58, 20 June 2017).
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 44312/12

  ERCANKAN c. TURQUIE

  The Court reiterates in this connection that the absence of special legislative guidelines may be compensated for by other context-specific instructions and measures by the relevant authorities, which appears to have been the situation in the present case (see, for instance, Mikhno v. Ukraine, no. 32514/12, § 127, 1 September 2016, and Çakmakçı v. Turkey (dec.), no. 3952/11, 2 May 2017).