Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=17.11.2015&Aktenzeichen=14350/05
Timestamp: 2019-05-22 03:57:42+00:00
Document Index: 6366083

Matched Legal Cases: ["l'article 2", '§ 16', '§ 128', '§ 170', '§ 96', '§ 187', '§ 133', '§ 37', '§ 133', '§ 37', '§ 69', '§ 157', '§ 35', '§ 197', '§ 59', '§ 161', '§ 83', '§ 198', '§ 73', '§ 66', '§ 83', '§ 198', '§ 73', '§ 66', '§ 19']

EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 14350/05, 15245/05, 16051/05 - dejure.org
EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 14350/05, 15245/05, 16051/05
https://dejure.org/2015,33663
EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 14350/05, 15245/05, 16051/05 (https://dejure.org/2015,33663)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.11.2015 - 14350/05, 15245/05, 16051/05 (https://dejure.org/2015,33663)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. November 2015 - 14350/05, 15245/05, 16051/05 (https://dejure.org/2015,33663)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,33663) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Exception préliminaire jointe au fond et rejetée (Article 35-1 - Epuisement des voies de recours internes);Partiellement irrecevable;Violation de l'article 2 - Droit à la vie (Article 2 - Obligations positives;Article 2-1 - Enquête efficace) (Volet procédural);Dommage matériel - demande rejetée (Article 41 - Dommage matériel;Satisfaction équitable);Préjudice moral - réparation (Article 41 - Préjudice moral;Satisfaction équitable) (französisch)
EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 34764/07
DELIBAS v. TURKEY
On 17 August 1999 the applicant's daughter, Nesrin Delibas, lost her life following the collapse of the building where she resided in Düzce as the result of an earthquake (see M. Özel and Others v. Turkey, nos. 14350/05 and 2 others, § 16, 17 November 2015 for further details regarding that earthquake).
In this connection the Court reiterates that the State's positive obligation to protect the right to life has also been found to arise in the context of deaths resulting from natural disasters (see, for instance, Budayeva and Others, cited above, §§ 128-130, and M. Özel and Others v. Turkey, nos. 14350/05 and 2 others, §§ 170-172, 17 November 2015).
EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 46190/13
CASTRO ET LAVENIA c. ITALIE
À cet égard, la Cour rappelle que cette disposition n'implique nullement le droit pour un requérant de faire poursuivre ou condamner au pénal des tiers (Öneryildiz, précité, § 96) ou une obligation de résultat supposant que toute poursuite doit se solder par une condamnation, voire par le prononcé d'une peine déterminée (Özel et autres c. Turquie, nos 14350/05, 15245/05 et 16051/05, § 187, 17 novembre 2015).
EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 44312/12
ERCANKAN v. TURKEY
Detailed information regarding Law no. 4483 (the Prosecution of Civil Servants and Public Officials Act) may be found in the cases of M. Özel and Others v. Turkey (nos. 14350/05 and 2 others, § 133, 17 November 2015) and Aydogdu v. Turkey (no. 40448/06, §§ 37-39, 30 August 2016).
Detailed information regarding Law no. 4483 on the Prosecution of Civil Servants and Public Officials may be found in the cases of M. Özel and Others v. Turkey (nos. 14350/05 and 2 others, § 133, 17 November 2015) and Aydogdu v. Turkey (no. 40448/06, §§ 37-39, 30 August 2016).
Ce n'est que lorsqu'il est satisfait à ces deux conditions que la nature subsidiaire du mécanisme de protection de la Convention s'oppose à un examen de la requête (Eckle c. Allemagne, 15 juillet 1982, §§ 69 et suivants, série A no 51, et M. Özel et autres c. Turquie, nos 14350/05, 15245/05 et 16051/05, § 157, 17 novembre 2015).
EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 16408/10
ALI ABA TALIPOGLU c. TURQUIE
Aussi la Cour tient-elle une nouvelle fois à rappeler que la prompte réaction des autorités est capitale pour maintenir la confiance du public et son adhésion à l'État de droit et pour prévenir toute apparence de tolérance d'actes illégaux ou de collusion dans leur perpétration (Ibrahim Demirtas c. Turquie, no 25018/10, §§ 35-36, 28 octobre 2014, et M. Özel et autres c. Turquie, nos 14350/05, 15245/05 et 16051/05, § 197, 17 novembre 2015).
EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 30798/10
ATA c. TURQUIE
Il lui faut dès lors examiner si, compte tenu de l'ensemble des circonstances de la cause, un requérant a fait tout ce que l'on pouvait raisonnablement attendre de lui pour épuiser les voies de recours internes (Ilhan c. Turquie [GC], no 22277/93, § 59, CEDH 2000-VII, et M. Özel et autres c. Turquie, nos 14350/05, 15245/05 et 16051/05, § 161, 17 novembre 2015).
EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 64289/12
ÖZÜTEMIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
In these circumstances, while the Court acknowledges that the failure to prosecute persons holding public office owing to a refusal by the administrative authorities to authorise such action has been found to raise an issue under Article 2 of the Convention in certain circumstances (see, for example, Asiye Genç v. Turkey, no. 24109/07, § 83, 27 January 2015, and M. Özel and Others v. Turkey, nos. 14350/05 and 2 others, § 198, 17 November 2015), it considers in the light of its case-law on non-intentional infringements of the right to life that Article 2 did not necessarily require a criminal-law remedy on the facts and could be satisfied if the applicants had at their disposal an effective civil-law remedy capable of establishing the facts and the alleged responsibility of the authorities for the death of Ali Özütemiz and enabling them to obtain redress, as appropriate (see, for instance, Anna Todorova, cited above, § 73; Ciechonska, cited above, § 66; and Gençarslan, cited above).
EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 78906/11
SAN v. TURKEY
In these circumstances, while the Court acknowledges that the failure to indict and prosecute persons holding public office owing to a refusal by the administrative authorities to authorise such action has been found to raise an issue under Article 2 of the Convention in certain circumstances (see, for example, Asiye Genç v. Turkey, no. 24109/07, § 83, 27 January 2015, and M. Özel and Others v. Turkey, nos. 14350/05 and 2 others, § 198, 17 November 2015), it considers in the light of its case-law on non-intentional infringements of the right to life that Article 2 did not necessarily require a criminal-law remedy on the facts and could be satisfied if the applicant had at her disposal an effective civil-law remedy capable of establishing the facts and the alleged responsibility of the authorities for the death of her son and enabling her to obtain redress, as appropriate (see, for instance, Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 23302/03, § 73, 24 May 2011; Ciechonska, cited above, § 66; and Gençarslan, cited above, §§ 19-22).