Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AYSU v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Aysu v. Turkey

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.01.2002 - 62566/00

  HAZAR, TEKTAS, BEKIROGLU, PEKOL, BOZKUS, TEKTAS, ATMAN, ISIK, AKSUCU, DOSTER, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  62566/00 and others, 10 January 2002) or from the date of knowledge of that act or its effect on or prejudice to the applicant (see Dennis and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76573/01, 2 July 2002).
• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  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).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 76573/01

  DENNIS AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  62566/00 and others, 10 January 2002) or from the date of knowledge of that act or its effect on or prejudice to the applicant (see Dennis and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76573/01, 2 July 2002).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  Such proof may, however, follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch, cited above, § 34, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  The Court emphasises that, in respect of a person who is placed under the control of the authorities, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his or her own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

  SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in cases raising similar issues to those in the present application (see, for example, Atıcı v. Turkey, no. 19735/02, 10 May 2007; Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, ECHR 2007-II (extracts); Dereci v. Turkey, no. 77845/01, 24 May 2005; and TaciroÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 25324/02, 2 February 2006).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  It marks out the temporal limits of supervision carried out by the organs of the Convention and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible (see, among other authorities, Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 73065/01

  BULUT and YAVUZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44021/07

  Furthermore, it ought to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being in a state of uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey, no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Içöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003; and Kenar v. Turkey (dec.), no. 67215/01, 1 December 2005).
• EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 77845/01

  DERECI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 25324/02

  TACIROGLU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 839/02

  MASLOVA AND NALBANDOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01

  BÖKE AND KANDEMIR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.01.2004 - 54919/00

  ICOZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 19735/02

  ATICI v. TURKEY

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 18996/06

  [FRE]

  The Court recalls at the outset, as it has held in previous cases, that the conclusion reached in paragraph 85 above does not preclude the applicant's complaint in relation to Article 3 from being "arguable" for the purposes of the positive obligation to investigate (see, Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009; and Aysu v. Turkey, no. 44021/07, § 40, 13 March 2012).
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02

  KYRIACOU TSIAKKOURMAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  In the Court's opinion, his submissions, coupled with the injuries noted in the medical reports issued in the aftermath of his arrest, created an arguable claim that the first applicant might have been subjected to excessive use of force or ill-treatment during his arrest and had thus triggered the obligation to conduct an ex officio investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, Aksoy, cited above, § 98-99, ECHR 1996-VI; Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 112, ECHR 1999-IV; Özbey v. Turkey (dec.), no. 31883/96, 8 March 2001; Arat v. Turkey, no. 10309/03, § 43, 10 November 2009; and Aysu v. Turkey, no. 44021/07, § 40, 13 March 2012).
• EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 32277/07

  [ENG]

  Nevertheless, as it has held in previous cases, that does not preclude this complaint from being "arguable" for the purposes of the positive obligation to investigate under Article 3 (see Aysu v. Turkey, no. 44021/07, § 40, 13 March 2012).

• EGMR, 25.09.2019 - 36617/07

  AFET SÜREYYA EREN AGAINST TURKEY AND 130 OTHER CASES

  44021/07.
• EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 72174/10

  YIGITDOGAN v. TURKEY

  Nevertheless, as it has held in previous cases, this does not preclude the applicant's complaint in relation to Article 3 from being "arguable" for the purposes of the positive obligation to investigate (see Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009, and Aysu v. Turkey, no. 44021/07, § 40, 13 March 2012).
• EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 6042/09

  [ENG]

  There is also no indication in the case file that he requested or was refused permission to see another doctor (see Aysu v. Turkey, no. 44021/07, § 35, 13 March 2012).
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 34364/08

  [ENG]

  Nevertheless, as it has held in previous cases, that does not preclude her complaint in relation to Article 3 from being "arguable" for the purposes of the obligation to investigate (see, among many other authorities, Yaşa v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, § 112, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI; Ay, cited above; Gülbahar and Others, cited above, § 72; Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009; Gök and Güler v. Turkey, no. 74307/01, § 39, 28 July 2009; and Aysu v. Turkey, no. 44021/07, § 40, 13 March 2012).
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 41844/09

  [ENG]

  Therefore, the investigation conducted into her allegations, until the instigation of the new investigation in 2011, cannot be considered as effective (see Aysu v. Turkey, no. 44021/07, §§ 41-42, 13 March 2012, and Tarkan Yavas, cited above, §§ 35-38).
• EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 22568/05

  [ENG]

  Nevertheless, as it has held in previous cases, that does not preclude the applicant's complaint in relation to Article 3 from being "arguable" for the purposes of the positive obligation to investigate (see Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009, and Aysu v. Turkey, no. 44021/07, § 40, 13 March 2012).
• EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 22182/10

  GÜNES v. TURKEY

  In view of the above, the Court considers that the unexplained inactivity of the applicant and indifference on his part towards the lack of an investigation for over ten years rendered his complaint of 25 October 2010 without substance, and also fell foul of the purposes of the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (compare with Aysu v. Turkey no. 44021/07, §§ 28-29, 13 March 2012, where the Court dismissed the Government's objection regarding the six-month time-limit, noting that the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment had been examined on their merits by the prosecuting authorities although the applicant had waited for more than seven years before lodging a separate complaint).
• EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 36144/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 28.08.2012 - 37552/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 58210/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 74021/12

  KARABULUT c. TURQUIE