Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AKPINAR AND ALTUN v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 3, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) No violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 3 Not necessary to examine Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AKPINAR ET ALTUN c. TURQUIE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 3, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 2 (aspect matériel) Violation de l'art. 2 (aspect procédural) Non-violation de l'art. 3 Violation de l'art. 3 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 3 (aspect procédural) Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire ...

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Zitiert selbst (17)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 56760/00

  The Court has already held that the very essence of the Convention is respect for human dignity (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 65, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 56760/00

  The question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a further factor to be taken into account (see, for example, Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 101, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 58757/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 56760/00

  It is true that the Court has never applied Article 3 of the Convention in the context of disrespect for a dead body (see paragraph 82 of the judgment), although it has excluded the notion of interference with respect for private life in relation to the exhumation of corpses for DNA testing (see Estate of Kresten Filtenborg Mortensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 1338/03, 15 May 2006, and Jäggi v. Switzerland, no. 58757/00, § 42, ECHR 2006-...).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 56760/00

  It prohibits in absolute terms inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 56760/00

  As to the second limb of the applicants' complaint, the Court previously held, in the Akkum and Others v. Turkey judgment (no. 21894/93, § 259, 24 March 2005), that one of the applicants, a father who was presented with the mutilated body of his son, could claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of a violation of Article 3. Referring to its jurisprudence concerning the anguish suffered by family members of disappeared persons (Çakıcı v. Turkey, [GC], no. 23657/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV, and Timurtas v. Turkey no. 23531/94, § 96-98, ECHR 2000-VI), the Court concluded that the anguish caused to that applicant in such circumstances amounted to degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3.
• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 56760/00

  In order for a punishment or treatment associated with it to be "inhuman" or "degrading", the suffering or humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment (see V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 71, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 56760/00

  As to the second limb of the applicants' complaint, the Court previously held, in the Akkum and Others v. Turkey judgment (no. 21894/93, § 259, 24 March 2005), that one of the applicants, a father who was presented with the mutilated body of his son, could claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of a violation of Article 3. Referring to its jurisprudence concerning the anguish suffered by family members of disappeared persons (Çakıcı v. Turkey, [GC], no. 23657/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV, and Timurtas v. Turkey no. 23531/94, § 96-98, ECHR 2000-VI), the Court concluded that the anguish caused to that applicant in such circumstances amounted to degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3.
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 56760/00

  As to the second limb of the applicants' complaint, the Court previously held, in the Akkum and Others v. Turkey judgment (no. 21894/93, § 259, 24 March 2005), that one of the applicants, a father who was presented with the mutilated body of his son, could claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of a violation of Article 3. Referring to its jurisprudence concerning the anguish suffered by family members of disappeared persons (Çakıcı v. Turkey, [GC], no. 23657/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV, and Timurtas v. Turkey no. 23531/94, § 96-98, ECHR 2000-VI), the Court concluded that the anguish caused to that applicant in such circumstances amounted to degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3.
• EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 35962/97

  GÖMI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 56760/00

  Given the unclear circumstances of the present case, the Court is unable to establish "beyond reasonable doubt" that Seyit Külekçi and DoÄŸan Altun were deprived of their lives by the security forces as a result of a use of force which was more than absolutely necessary, within the meaning of Article 2 § 2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Gömi and Others v. Turkey, no. 35962/97, § 60, 21 December 2006; and AÄŸdas v. Turkey, no. 34592/97, § 96, 27 July 2004).
• EGMR, 08.12.2005 - 32444/96

  KANLIBAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 56760/00

  Furthermore, the Court has already had occasion to consider two cases in which members of the security forces deployed in the fight against terrorism in Turkey were accused of mutilating corpses after the death of the victims (see, in this regard, Akkum, cited above, and Kanlıbas v. Turkey, no. 32444/96, 8 December 2005).
• EGMR, 15.05.2006 - 1338/03

  SUCCESSION KRESTEN FILTENBORG MORTENSEN c. DANEMARK
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94

  HUGH JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93

  KILIÇ v. TURKEY
• RG, 05.06.1905 - 27/05

  1. Unter welchen Voraussetzungen erfüllt das Entgehen eines Gewinnes im …

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.06.2019 - 57939/18

  Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) ./. Deutschland

  Sie sei nicht verpflichtet, einen Rechtsbehelf einzulegen, ohne über die Kenntnisse zu verfügen, die ihr die Anfechtung der Rechtmäßigkeit einer Handlung ermöglichen würden (sie verwies auf Akpınar und Altun ./. Türkei, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 56760/00, Rdnr. 42, 27.
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 61243/08

  [ENG]

  Nor is there any suggestion of mutilation of the body (see Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, §§ 258-259, ECHR 2005-II (extracts), and Akpınar and Altun v. Turkey, no. 56760/00, §§ 84-87, 27 February 2007) or that the corpse had been dismembered and decapitated (see Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, §§ 120-122, 6 November 2008) in the present case.
• EGMR, 14.03.2019 - 30015/96

  A. ET AUTRES CONTRE LA TURQUIE ET 204 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  56760/00.

• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 11327/14

  HAÁSZ v. HUNGARY

  As regards the non-exhaustion of the other remedy referred to by the Government, that is, judicial review of the decision of the Veszprém County Chief Police Department, the Court notes that once the above-mentioned criminal remedies were in progress, the applicants were not required to embark on another attempt to obtain redress by pursuing an administrative claim (see Akpınar and Altun v. Turkey, no. 56760/00, § 68, 27 February 2007).
• EGMR, 18.06.2026 - 20075/16
  In a number of cases the Court has been called on to examine whether the distress caused to relatives by the actions of members of the military forces during or after specific operations amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention: in the case of Benzer and Others v. Turkey (no. 23502/06, §§ 209-13, 12 November 2013), the Court found there had been inhuman treatment where the applicants had seen the bodies of their close relatives who had been bombed by military aircraft and had had to collect what was left of their bodies and bury them in mass graves, the pilots who bombed the villages and their superiors who had ordered the bombings having had no concern for human life and the national authorities having failed to offer even the minimum humanitarian assistance to the applicants in the aftermath of the bombing; in Akkum and Others v. Turkey (no. 21894/93, § 259, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)) the Court examined the mutilation of a person's body after his death in an area where a military operation had been conducted and concluded that the anguish caused to the father of the deceased amounted to degrading treatment; the same approach was taken in Akpınar and Altun v. Turkey (no. 56760/00, §§ 86-87, 27 February 2007); in Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 3013/04, § 121, 6 November 2008), the victims' bodies had been dismembered and decapitated and the applicants had been unable to bury their relatives in a proper manner, which the Court found in itself to have caused them profound and continuous anguish and distress.
• EGMR, 04.11.2021 - 32427/16

  PETROSYAN v. AZERBAIJAN

  However, the Court has previously considered that individuals who have been presented with mutilated bodies of close family members could claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of a violation of Article 3 (see, for instance, Akpınar and Altun v. Turkey, no. 56760/00, §§ 84-87, 27 February 2007).
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 7469/06

  [ENG]

  In Akkum and Others v. Turkey (no. 21894/93, § 259, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)) the Court examined the mutilation of the body of a person after his death in an area where a military operation had been conducted, and concluded that the anguish caused to the father of the deceased whose body had been mutilated amounted to degrading treatment (see also Akpınar and Altun v. Turkey, no. 56760/00, §§ 86-87, 27 February 2007).
• EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 41465/09

  [FRE]

  Elle rappelle aussi que l'article 3 de la Convention ne s'applique pas s'agissant de traitements infligés après le décès de la personne concernée (voir, par exemple, Akpınar et Altun c. Turquie, no 56760/00, § 82, 27 février 2007).
• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 54591/00

  MANITARAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  As to the conditions in which Ioannis Manitaras's body was handed over to the applicants - notably, the fact that it was covered in an old sheet and not in a temporary coffin or body bag - the Court refers to the case of Akpınar and Altun v. Turkey (no. 56760/00, §§ 84-87, 27 February 2007) in which it found that the mutilation of the applicants" relative's body amounted to degrading treatment.
• EGMR, 26.02.2008 - 43443/98

  MANSUROGLU c. TURQUIE

  Cela signifie que les opérations, telles que celles en cause en l'espèce, en plus d'être autorisées par le droit national, doivent être suffisamment bornées par ce droit, dans le cadre d'un système de garanties adéquates et effectives contre l'arbitraire et l'abus de la force et même contre les accidents évitables (Akpınar et Altun c. Turquie, no 56760/00, § 50, CEDH 2007-... (extraits) ; Makaratzis, précité, § 58 ; Hilda Hafsteinsdóttir c. Islande, no 40905/98, § 56, 8 juin 2004).
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 28433/02

  CAMDERELI v. TURKEY
• EGMR - 19243/16 (anhängig)

  K.S. AND N.A. v. AZERBAIJAN and 21 other applications
• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 7432/17

  GURBANOV v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 32968/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 22759/16 (anhängig)

  T.M. AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA and 4 other applications
• EGMR - 54856/16 (anhängig)

  KHALAPYAN v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR - 44364/22 (anhängig)

  G.A. AND H.A. v. AZERBAIJAN