Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PIRALI ORUJOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 8460/07

  It marks out the temporal limits of supervision carried out by the organs of the Convention and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible (see, amongst other authorities, Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  SOMOGYI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 8460/07

  As has been found above, the proceedings before the Supreme Court did not comply with the requirements of fairness, as the applicant was deprived of the opportunity to exercise any of his rights under Article 6. In such circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the cassation appeal proceedings in order to guarantee the examination of his appeal in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov, cited above, § 46; and Abbasov. cited above, §§ 41-42).
• EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 25149/03

  Rechtssache V. H. gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 8460/07

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 74-77, ECHR 2003-VI; Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden (striking out), no. 53507/99, §§ 24-27, 18 July 2006; and Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, §§ 34-37, ECHR 2005-IX).

 
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15435/03

  SHULEPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 8460/07

  As has been found above, the proceedings before the Supreme Court did not comply with the requirements of fairness, as the applicant was deprived of the opportunity to exercise any of his rights under Article 6. In such circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the cassation appeal proceedings in order to guarantee the examination of his appeal in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov, cited above, § 46; and Abbasov. cited above, §§ 41-42).
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 8460/07

  This means that both prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed and the evidence presented by the other party (see Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, §§ 66-67, Series A no. 211).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 8460/07

  The Court further observes that in certain cases it has found that the presence in person of the accused at a hearing of an appeal where only points of law were considered was not crucial (see, for example, Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, and Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168).
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 16757/90

  STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 8460/07

  This right is implicit in the very notion of an adversarial procedure and can also be derived from the guarantees contained in sub-paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph 3 of Article 6 (see Colozza v. Italy, 12 February 1985, § 27, Series A no. 89, and Stanford v. the United Kingdom, 23 February 1994, § 26, Series A no. 282-A).
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

  KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 8460/07

  The Court further observes that in certain cases it has found that the presence in person of the accused at a hearing of an appeal where only points of law were considered was not crucial (see, for example, Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, and Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168).

• EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 34015/17

  SARDAR BABAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Accordingly, in so far as the lawyer is entitled to seek payment of his fees under the contract, the applicant may claim reimbursement of those fees (see Pirali Orujov v. Azerbaijan, no. 8460/07, § 74, 3 February 2011; Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 31805/06, § 89, 17 April 2012; Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 30500/11, § 97, 1 June 2017; Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, §§ 371-72, 28 November 2017; and Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32538/10, § 62, 30 January 2020).
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 4854/10

  HAJIZADE AND ABDULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court has established that there is no effective remedy in Azerbaijan in respect of statements made by domestic authorities concerning an applicant's right to the presumption of innocence (see Pirali Orujov v. Azerbaijan, no. 8460/07, §§ 50-58, 3 February 2011).
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30500/11

  MALIK BABAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Moreover, unlike the cases in which the applicants were able to produce a contract for legal services, according to which, the amounts due were to be paid in the event that the Court found a violation of the applicants" rights (see Pirali Orujov v. Azerbaijan, no. 8460/07, §§ 72-75, 3 February 2011, and Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 31805/06, §§ 85-89, 17 April 2012), in the present case no such a contract was submitted to the Court.
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 10616/17

  GURBANOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Lacking any evidence of proper notification, the Court accepts the applicant's submissions that he was not aware of the date and venue of the final cassation hearing, and that this prevented him from attending and defending his rights (compare Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, § 29, 17 January 2008; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 37, 8 October 2009; Pirali Orujov v. Azerbaijan, no. 8460/07, § 41, 3 February 2011; and Religious Community of Jehovah's Witnesses and Hansen v. Azerbaijan, no. 52682/07, § 28, 30 January 2020).
• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 54567/13

  MUSAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the failure of appellate courts to duly inform applicants and their representatives of the date and time of hearings (see, among many others, Pirali Orujov v. Azerbaijan, no. 8460/07, §§ 40-46, 3 February 2011; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, §§ 36-43, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 28-34, 17 January 2008).