Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=10.03.2009&Aktenzeichen=71912/01
Timestamp: 2019-08-26 10:44:45
Document Index: 534263752

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 6', '§ 54', '§ 40', '§ 54', '§ 57', '§ 54', '§ 40', '§ 54', '§ 50', '§ 54', '§ 112', '§ 72', '§ 54', '§ 39', '§ 40', '§ 54', '§ 64', '§ 132', '§ 135', '§ 73', '§ 54', '§ 54']

EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01, 26968/02, 36397/03 - dejure.org
EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01, 26968/02, 36397/03
https://dejure.org/2009,62188
EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01, 26968/02, 36397/03 (https://dejure.org/2009,62188)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.03.2009 - 71912/01, 26968/02, 36397/03 (https://dejure.org/2009,62188)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. März 2009 - 71912/01, 26968/02, 36397/03 (https://dejure.org/2009,62188)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,62188) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-3-c Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
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).
Although in the present case the Court has not found it proved, on account of a lack of evidence, that the applicant was ill-treated by the police after his arrest, that does not in principle preclude the 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 Aleksandr Smirnov v. Ukraine, no. 38683/06, § 57, 15 July 2010).
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).
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).
Nevertheless, as it has held in previous cases, that does not preclude his 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).
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, Yasa 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).
Nevertheless, as it has held in previous cases, that does not preclude this 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).
It concludes, therefore, that there is no need to make a separate ruling on the applicant's remaining complaints under this provision (see Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007, Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, § 132, 22 July 2008, Güveç v. Turkey, no. 70337/01, § 135, 20 January 2009, and Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 73, 10 March 2009).
Nevertheless, as it has held in previous cases, that does not preclude his complaint in relation to Article 3 from being "arguable" for the purposes of the State's positive obligation to investigate (see, Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009).
Nevertheless, as it has held in previous cases, that does not preclude this complaint in relation to Article 3 from being "arguable" for the purposes of the State's positive obligation to investigate (see, Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009).
EGMR, 10.11.2009 - 10309/03