Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PEKASLAN v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 11 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Pekaslan and Others v. Turkey

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 4572/06

  A failure on a Government's part to submit such information as is in their hands without a satisfactory explanation may not only reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 of the Convention, but may also give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the allegations (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 66, ECHR 2000-VI; see also Rule 44A and C of Rules of Court).
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 4572/06

  Thus, it cannot be said that the police were called upon to react without prior preparation (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 74552/01

  OYA ATAMAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 4572/06

  Turning to the question of whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society", the Court has examined the applicants" complaints in the light of the fundamental principles underlying its judgments relating to Article 11 of the Convention (see, in particular, Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, §§ 35-44, ECHR 2006-XIII, and the judgments cited therein; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, §§ 33-39, ECHR 2007-IX; and Éva Molnár v. Hungary, no. 10346/05, §§ 23-46, 7 October 2008).

 
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 25691/04

  BUKTA ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 4572/06

  Turning to the question of whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society", the Court has examined the applicants" complaints in the light of the fundamental principles underlying its judgments relating to Article 11 of the Convention (see, in particular, Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, §§ 35-44, ECHR 2006-XIII, and the judgments cited therein; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, §§ 33-39, ECHR 2007-IX; and Éva Molnár v. Hungary, no. 10346/05, §§ 23-46, 7 October 2008).
• EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 10346/05

  EVA MOLNÁR c. HONGRIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 4572/06

  Turning to the question of whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society", the Court has examined the applicants" complaints in the light of the fundamental principles underlying its judgments relating to Article 11 of the Convention (see, in particular, Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, §§ 35-44, ECHR 2006-XIII, and the judgments cited therein; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, §§ 33-39, ECHR 2007-IX; and Éva Molnár v. Hungary, no. 10346/05, §§ 23-46, 7 October 2008).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 4572/06

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that the undeniable difficulties inherent in the fight against crime cannot justify placing limits on the protection to be afforded in respect of the physical integrity of individuals (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336, and the case cited therein).