Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALI AND AYSE DURAN v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 2+3 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 2+3 Pecuniary damage - award Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 42942/02
• EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 42942/02

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 42942/02

  As regards the first limb of the Government's submissions, the Court reiterates that it is sufficient that the complaints intended to be made subsequently before it should have been raised, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements before the national authorities (see Gökçe and Demirel v. Turkey, no. 51839/99, § 63, 22 June 2006; and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 42942/02

  While there is no absolute obligation for all prosecutions to result in conviction or in a particular sentence, the national courts should not under any circumstances be prepared to allow life-endangering offences and grave attacks on physical and moral integrity to go unpunished (see Öneryıldız, cited above, §§ 95 and 96; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104-109, ECHR 2000-VII; and Okkalı, cited above, § 65).
• EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 26129/95

  TANLI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 42942/02

  While it is true that it is not the Court's task to address issues of domestic law concerning individual criminal responsibility, or to deliver guilty or not guilty verdicts (see Öneryıldız, cited above, § 116), in order to determine whether the respondent Government have fulfilled their international law responsibility under the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Tanlı v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III (extracts)) the Court must have regard to the Denizli Assize Court's considerations while convicting the four officers and to the punishment imposed on them as a result.

 
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 42942/02

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings also requires that these provisions be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see Uçar v. Turkey, no. 52392/99, § 102, 11 April 2006; and Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 109, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57945/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 42942/02

  Otherwise, the obligation to protect the right to life and the prohibition of ill-treatment would, despite their fundamental importance, be ineffective in practice and it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity (see, mutatis mutandis, Zeynep Özcan, cited above, § 40; and Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, § 177, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 52392/99

  UÇAR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 42942/02

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings also requires that these provisions be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see Uçar v. Turkey, no. 52392/99, § 102, 11 April 2006; and Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 109, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99

  OKKALI c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 42942/02

  The Court considers that the aforementioned complaints, as formulated by the applicants, essentially concern the positive obligations to protect the life and physical and moral integrity of the person through the law (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 95, ECHR 2004-XII; Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 54, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Zeynep Özcan v. Turkey, no. 45906/99, § 38, 20 February 2007; and, a contrario, Dölek v. Turkey, no. 39541/98, 2 October 2007) and therefore should be examined from the standpoint of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, which read as follows, alone:.
• EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 39541/98

  DÖLEK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 42942/02

  The Court considers that the aforementioned complaints, as formulated by the applicants, essentially concern the positive obligations to protect the life and physical and moral integrity of the person through the law (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 95, ECHR 2004-XII; Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 54, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Zeynep Özcan v. Turkey, no. 45906/99, § 38, 20 February 2007; and, a contrario, Dölek v. Turkey, no. 39541/98, 2 October 2007) and therefore should be examined from the standpoint of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, which read as follows, alone:.
• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 45906/99

  ZYNEP OZCAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 42942/02

  The Court considers that the aforementioned complaints, as formulated by the applicants, essentially concern the positive obligations to protect the life and physical and moral integrity of the person through the law (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 95, ECHR 2004-XII; Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 54, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Zeynep Özcan v. Turkey, no. 45906/99, § 38, 20 February 2007; and, a contrario, Dölek v. Turkey, no. 39541/98, 2 October 2007) and therefore should be examined from the standpoint of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, which read as follows, alone:.

• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 22978/05

  Gäfgen - Folter bei polizeilicher Vernehmung; Kindesentführung; Geständnis trotz …

  Das Ergebnis ist wesentlich, um sicherzustellen, dass die Abschreckungswirkung der geltenden Rechtsordnung und die Bedeutung der Rolle, die sie bei der Verhütung von Verstößen gegen das Verbot von Misshandlung spielen muss, nicht unterlaufen werden (vgl. Ali und Ayse Duran ./. Türkei, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 42942/02, Rdnr. 62, 8. April 2008;… Çamdereli, a.a.O., Rdnr. 38;… und Nikolova und Velichkova, a.a.O., Rdnrn. 60 ff.).
• EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 60561/14

  S.M. c. CROATIE

  Sixthly, it is important to note that when an investigation leads to the initiation of proceedings before the domestic courts, the proceedings as a whole, including the trial phase, must meet the above criteria for an effective investigation (see Öneryildiz v. Turkey ï�?GCï��, no. 48939/99, §§ 95-96, ECHR 2004-XII; Ali and Ayse Duran v. Turkey, no. 42942/02, § 61, 8 April 2008; and Chowdury and Others v. Greece, 21884/15, §§ 123 and §§ 127-28, 30 March 2017).
• EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 63543/09

  DURDAJ AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  However, it must still exercise a certain power of review and intervene in cases of manifest disproportion between the gravity of the act and the punishment imposed (see Ali and Ay?Ÿe Duran v. Turkey, no. 42942/02, § 66, 8 April 2008, with further references).

 
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 5886/15

  LINGURAR ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  Elle rappelle à ce propos avoir dit de manière réitérée que, lorsque des agents de l'État sont inculpés d'infractions impliquant des mauvais traitements, il importe qu'ils soient suspendus de leurs fonctions pendant l'instruction ou le procès et en soient démis en cas de condamnation (voir, par exemple, Abdülsamet Yaman c. Turquie, no 32446/96, § 55, 2 novembre 2004, Nikolova et Velitchkova c. Bulgarie, no 7888/03, § 63, 20 décembre 2007, et Ali et Ayse Duran c. Turquie, no 42942/02, § 64, 8 avril 2008).
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 33750/03

  YETER v. TURKEY

  A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Ali and Ayse Duran v. Turkey (no. 42942/02, § 45, 8 April 2008) and Albayrak v. Turkey (no. 38406/97, § 29, ECHR 2008-...., in respect of Amnesty Law no. 4455).
• EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 24827/05

  KÜLAH AND KOYUNCU v. TURKEY

  In order to examine whether that obligation is satisfied, it is for the Court to review whether and to what extent the national courts, in reaching their conclusions, may be deemed to have submitted the case to the careful scrutiny required by Article 2 of the Convention, so that the deterrent effect of the judicial system in place and the significance of the role it is required to play in preventing violations of the right to life are not undermined (see Ali and Ayse Duran v. Turkey, no. 42942/02, § 62, 8 April 2008).
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 15014/11

  HASAN KÖSE v. TURKEY

  In order to examine whether that obligation has been satisfied, it is for the Court to review whether and to what extent the national courts, in reaching their conclusions, may be deemed to have submitted the case to the careful scrutiny required by Article 2 of the Convention, so that the deterrent effect of the judicial system that is in place and the significance of the role it is required to play in preventing violations of the right to life are not undermined (see Ali and Ayse Duran v. Turkey, no. 42942/02, § 62, 8 April 2008).
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 8656/10

  KASAP AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  In order to examine whether that obligation has been satisfied, it is for the Court to review whether and to what extent the national courts, in reaching their conclusions, may be deemed to have submitted the case to the careful scrutiny required by Article 2 of the Convention, so that the deterrent effect of the judicial system that is in place and the significance of the role it is required to play in preventing violations of the right to life are not undermined (see Ali and Ayse Duran v. Turkey, no. 42942/02, § 62, 8 April 2008).
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 21789/02

  DERMAN v. TURKEY

  33097/96 and 57834/00, § 96-98, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts); and Zeynep Özcan v. Turkey, no. 45906/99, §§ 26-30, 20 February 2007; Ali and Ayse Duran v. Turkey, no. 42942/02, § 45, 8 April 2008).
• EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 19180/03

  NAFIYE ÇETIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The relevant domestic law and practice in force, at the time of the death of Harun Çetin, are outlined in the following judgments: Ali and Ayse Duran v. Turkey (no. 42942/02, § 45, 8 April 2008), and Batı and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§ 96-99, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).