The principal facts on the judgment of european court of human right case of ekinci v turkey in the

In terms of "historical background", it is unfortunately not possible to ascertain whether or not Muhammad in fact married Aisha when she was six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old; nevertheless, the report that he did has, for many, become official sacred text; therefore, inasmuch as we can determine, that is the official "truth.

Second, could Article 41 be applied in an inter-state dispute? In those circumstances, the firing of at least shots at the door was not justified by any reasonable belief on the part of the officers that their lives were at risk from the occupants of the flat.

For costs and expenses, it awarded GBP 21, Belgium and 16 Other States [Source: The international community condemned the invasion in a series of UN Resolutions. The submissions of the respondent Governments [ The jurisdiction of the Court has been recognized to date by all 47 member states of the Council of Europe.

In his partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion, Josep Casadevall differentiated between the established list of objectively identifiable individuals among families of missing persons the 1, names provided to the Court on 8 June [16] and the list of potential but not fully documented victims among enclaved Greek-Cypriots living in the Karpas peninsula.

What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia? Further, Turkey argued that the language of Article 41 suggested it applied to individual subjects rather than corporate entities. The ECHR agreed with the domestic courts: Jurisdiction in the Xhavara case which concerned the alleged deliberate striking of an Albanian ship by an Italian naval vessel 35 nautical miles off the coast of Italy Xhavara and Others v.

Inthe Court opened 45, case files. The efficiency of the Court was threatened seriously by the large number of pending applications, which were accumulating and increasing steadily. The ECHR concludes its judgment in the case with a discussion of the Austrian courts' ruling that Sabaditsch-Wolff's statements "had not been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest, e.

While it was a control limited in scope airspace onlythe Article 1 positive obligation could be similarly limited.

IRIS 2006-8:2/1

The national courts found that Mrs S. Is it competent to do so? Each judge is elected by majority vote in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from among three candidates nominated by each contracting state. The ECHR also found that: Citing the Diallo decision at the International Court of Justice, the Grand Chamber ruled that responsible states could seek compensation for injuries to persons.

Please click the button below to get started. Nor were the officers required to account for the use of their weapons and ammunition. Turkey, supra note 1, at 4. The Committee of Ministers is to decide before whether more reforms of the Court are necessary. A case may be inadmissible when it is incompatible with the requirements of ratione materiae, ratione temporis or ratione personae, or if the case cannot be proceeded with on formal grounds, such as non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, lapse of the six months from the last internal decision complained of, anonymity, substantial identity with a matter already submitted to the Court, or with another procedure of international investigation.

In that case, could the application have been lodged against the FRY? The European Commissioner for Human Rights is now allowed to intervene in cases as a third party, providing written comments and taking part in hearings.

The Court considered whether the criminal proceedings cured the defects in the investigation into the events up to that date. Accordingly, it is not satisfied that the applicants and their deceased relatives were capable of coming within the jurisdiction of the respondent States on account of the extra-territorial act in question.

While Mehmet Gul was unlocking the door, the three police officers opened fire in one long, continuous burst, which caused him multiple injuries and destroyed the fingers on one hand. In its judgment, the Court especially considered the interest of a democratic society in ensuring and maintaining freedom of political debate.

There was insufficient evidence concerning the planning of the operation to establish that they were under instructions to use lethal force or that this was the predetermined purpose of the operation.Ineffective and excessively lengthy proceedings concerning the In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Ebcin v.

Turkey (application no. /05), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 29 April 1 Opuz v.

Turkey, (Application no. /02) 1) Reference Details Jurisdiction: European Court of Human Rights Date of decision: 9 June Case Status: Chamber judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Cengiz and Others v. Turkey (applications nos.

/10 and /11) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there The Court reiterated on that point that in its judgment in the case of Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey The European Court of Human Rights was set up in.

The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the Committee of Ministers (resolutions).

Case of D. and Others v. Turkey (Application Number /03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG In the case of D. and Others versus Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (third section), presided over by a (right to an effective remedy) and/or 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

In the case of Nada v.

European Court of Human Rights

Switzerland, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of: 4 NADA v. SWITZERLAND JUDGMENT THE FACTS I.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A. Background to the case the case of (Human.

The principal facts on the judgment of european court of human right case of ekinci v turkey in the
Rated 0/5 based on 2 review