Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAKIR KAÇMAZ v. TURKEY

  Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KAÇMAZ v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (22)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 8077/08

  Furthermore, where an individual makes a credible assertion that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 at the hands of the police or other similar agents of the State, that provision, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in... [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation (see, among many others, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV; and Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 117, 1 June 2010).
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 25/02

  BALÇIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 8077/08

  Having regard to the Government's admission that the injuries were caused by the police officers, the Court considers that the burden rests on the Government to demonstrate by convincing argument that the use of force was rendered strictly necessary by the applicant's own behaviour and that the force used by the police officers was not excessive (see Balçık and Others v. Turkey, no. 25/02, §§ 30-31, 29 November 2007, and Gazioğlu and Others, cited above, § 43).
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

  BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 8077/08

  In all cases, however, the complainant must be afforded effective access to the investigatory procedure (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§ 136-137, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).

• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 8077/08

  In all cases, however, the complainant must be afforded effective access to the investigatory procedure (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§ 136-137, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 16999/04

  SAMÜT KARABULUT v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 8077/08

  Thus, in the absence of a meaningful inquiry by the public prosecutor's office, the Government have failed to furnish convincing and credible arguments, information or documents which would provide a basis to explain or justify the degree of force used during the arrest operation (see Rehbock, cited above, § 76; Karatepe and Ulaş v. Turkey, no. 29766/03, § 32, 17 June 2008; and Samüt Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 16999/04, § 43, 27 January 2009).
• EGMR, 17.03.2009 - 15828/03

  SALMANOGLU AND POLATTAS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 8077/08

  Besides, the doctors merely recorded their findings in the letters which had been sent to the hospitals by the police headquarters and failed to use proper medical forms (see Salmanoğlu and Polattaş v. Turkey, no. 15828/03, § 87, 17 March 2009).
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01

  BÖKE AND KANDEMIR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 8077/08

  Nevertheless, in the absence of any evidence in support of the applicant's allegations, the Court considers that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its substantive aspect in respect of the ill-treatment to which the applicant was allegedly subjected during his detention in police custody (see Gülbahar and Others v. Turkey, no. 5264/03, § 54, 21 October 2008; and Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 50, 10 March 2009).
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 5264/03

  GÜLBAHAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 8077/08

  Nevertheless, in the absence of any evidence in support of the applicant's allegations, the Court considers that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its substantive aspect in respect of the ill-treatment to which the applicant was allegedly subjected during his detention in police custody (see Gülbahar and Others v. Turkey, no. 5264/03, § 54, 21 October 2008; and Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 50, 10 March 2009).
• EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 29766/03

  KARATEPE AND ULAS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 8077/08

  Thus, in the absence of a meaningful inquiry by the public prosecutor's office, the Government have failed to furnish convincing and credible arguments, information or documents which would provide a basis to explain or justify the degree of force used during the arrest operation (see Rehbock, cited above, § 76; Karatepe and Ulaş v. Turkey, no. 29766/03, § 32, 17 June 2008; and Samüt Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 16999/04, § 43, 27 January 2009).
• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 8077/08

  The Court reiterates at the outset that in cases concerning an investigation into ill-treatment applicants are expected to take steps to keep track of the investigation's progress, or lack thereof, and to lodge their applications with due expedition once they are, or should have become, aware of the lack of any effective criminal investigation (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, § 263, ECHR 2014 (extracts) and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 48130/99

  IVAN VASILEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 51284/09

  GEORGIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 42606/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 29835/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 12503/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 09.12.2015 - 14495/11

  ATILGAN ET AUTRES CONTRE LA TURQUIE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.09.2026 - 64510/17
  Such a strict proportionality approach has been accepted by the Court also in respect of situations in which an individual was already under the full control of the police (see, among other authorities, Milan v. France, no. 7549/03, § 45, 24 January 2008; Rachwalski and Ferenc v. Poland, no. 47709/99, § 59, 28 July 2009; and Şakir Kaçmaz v. Turkey, no. 8077/08, § 80, 10 November 2015).
• EGMR, 25.09.2019 - 36617/07

  AFET SÜREYYA EREN AGAINST TURKEY AND 130 OTHER CASES

  8077/08.
• EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 31475/10

  ANNENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  In respect of recourse to physical force during an arrest, the Court has previously stated that Article 3 of the Convention does not prohibit the use of force for effecting a lawful arrest, that such force must not be excessive (see, among others, Polyakov v. Russia, no. 77018/01, § 25, 29 January 2009, and Davitidze v. Russia, no. 8810/05, § 80, 30 May 2013), and that "such force may be used only if it is indispensable and must not be excessive" (see, for instance, Şakir Kaçmaz v. Turkey, no. 8077/08, § 80, 10 November 2015).

• EGMR, 30.06.2026 - 52053/18

  EIKENAAR v. THE NETHERLANDS

  At this juncture the Court finds it appropriate to reiterate the specificity of the face and head in the context of Article 3 of the Convention (see also Samüt Karabulut, cited above, §§ 41 and 43; A.P. v. Slovakia, cited above, §§ 61-62; and Şakir Kaçmaz v. Turkey, no. 8077/08, § 90, 10 November 2015).
• EGMR, 22.05.2025 - 231/16

  GEVORGYAN v. ARMENIA

  However, where such complaints concern the use of physical force, the Court attaches particular importance also to the type of injuries sustained and the circumstances in which force was used (compare Şakir Kaçmaz v. Turkey, no. 8077/08, § 80 in fine, 10 November 2015).
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 46713/10

  BAKIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Nonetheless, the Court has already examined and dismissed similar objections by the respondent Government (see Atılgan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 14495/11, 14531/11, 26274/11, 78923/11, 8408/12, 11848/12, 12078/12, 12103/12, 14745/12, 21910/12 and 41087/12, § 12, 27 January 2015, and Şakir Kaçmaz v. Turkey, no. 8077/08, § 62, 10 November 2015).
• EGMR, 22.09.2020 - 796/07

  CHUDALOVY v. RUSSIA

  Although the investigating authorities did not remain idle, and carried out a number of investigative steps, the key issue -whether the force used against the applicant had been strictly necessary and proportionate - had never been properly investigated: the investigators did not question the prison guards on that specific issue and did not assess their actions from that point of view in a meaningful manner (see Şakir Kaçmaz v. Turkey, no. 8077/08, § 90, 10 November 2015).
• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 59914/16

  NALBANT AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court further notes that it has already examined and dismissed similar objections by the respondent Government (see, for example, Sakir Kaçmaz v. Turkey, no. 8077/08, § 62, 10 November 2015).
• EGMR, 21.02.2019 - 7088/11

  GABLISHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  In this connection, the Court has held that applicants' delay in lodging a complaint is not decisive where the authorities ought to have been aware that an individual could have been subjected to ill-treatment, especially when the ill-treatment might have been inflicted by State agents (see Mocanu and Others, cited above, § 265; Mafalani, cited above, § 78; and Şakir Kaçmaz v. Turkey, no. 8077/08, § 70, 10 November 2015).
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 20347/07

  [FRE]

  En recherchant si la force utilisée n'était pas excessive ou injustifiée au vu des circonstances, la Cour attache une importance particulière aux blessures qui ont été occasionnées aux personnes visées par l'intervention et aux circonstances précises dans lesquelles elles l'ont été (consulter Rehbock c. Slovénie, no 29462/95, § 76, CEDH 2000-XII, R.L. et M.-J.D. c. France, no 44568/98, § 68, 19 mai 2004, Dembele c. Suisse, no 74010/11, § 42, 24 septembre 2013, Anzhelo Georgiev et autres c. Bulgarie, no 51284/09, § 66, 30 septembre 2014, et Şakir Kaçmaz c. Turquie, no 8077/08, § 80, 10 novembre 2015).
• EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 60844/11

  DAURBEKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 36643/09

  YIGIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 68793/13

  MINIBAYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 16624/12

  AYDEMIR AND KARAVIL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 14619/12

  GÜL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 2433/12

  VARHAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 70107/11

  SARITAS AND GEYIK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 76685/17

  RUDAK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 55894/13

  YUSIV v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 39047/11

  KiNiK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 34262/09

  DENIZ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 39041/10

  RAHMI SAHIN v. TURKEY