Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GULIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GULIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 15065/05

  D. gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 6383/15

  Furthermore, those statements were neither the sole nor the decisive basis for the applicant's conviction by the domestic courts, which based their findings on further significant evidence (compare Aho v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 15065/05, § 25, 29 September 2009, and Chukayev v. Russia, no. 36814/06, § 126-27, 5 November 2015; and contrast Schatschaschwili, cited above, § 144, and Avaz Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan, nos.
• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 37816/12

  AVAZ ZEYNALOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 6383/15

  37816/12 and 25260/14, § 122, 22 April 2021).
• EGMR, 10.04.2014 - 22062/07

  LAYIJOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 6383/15

  In particular, the applicant did not complain that his conviction had been based on planted evidence (contrast Layijov v. Azerbaijan, no. 22062/07, § 57, 10 April 2014, and Sakit Zahidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 51164/07, § 42, 12 November 2015).

 
• EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 18487/03

  KHAMETSHIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 6383/15

  The applicant, assisted by his defence lawyer, did not object to the reading out of the witnesses' pre-trial statements at the hearing (see paragraph 9 above) and did not contest the accuracy of the relevant trial records (compare Khametshin v. Russia, no. 18487/03, §§ 40-41, 4 March 2010, and Murtazaliyeva, cited above, §§ 119-25).
• EGMR, 07.03.2019 - 6005/08

  ABDULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 6383/15

  Thus, it is not clear whether the video recording of the incident was available and whether it was a crucial piece of physical evidence in the circumstances of the case (contrast Abdullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 6005/08, §§ 62-64, 7 March 2019).
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 51164/07

  SAKIT ZAHIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 6383/15

  In particular, the applicant did not complain that his conviction had been based on planted evidence (contrast Layijov v. Azerbaijan, no. 22062/07, § 57, 10 April 2014, and Sakit Zahidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 51164/07, § 42, 12 November 2015).
• EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 29474/07

  SHUMEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 6383/15

  The attesting witness' evidence is limited to the manner in which investigative measures were conducted and is, in essence, redundant evidence (compare Shumeyev and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 29474/07 and 3 others, § 37, 22 September 2015, and Murtazaliyeva, cited above, § 136).
• EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 29656/07

  MADATOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 6383/15

  It appears from the case file that during the proceedings, both the applicant and his lawyer were fully able to present their submissions and to cross-examine the attesting witness alleged to have had a mental illness (compare Madatov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 29656/07, § 64, 5 March 2019).
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 66802/01

  DOROKHOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 6383/15

  The dismissal of a request without giving reasons or the "silence" of the domestic courts in respect of a sufficiently reasoned and relevant request to call a defence witness does not necessarily lead to a finding of a violation of Article 6. Since the overall fairness of the proceedings is an overriding criterion under Article 6 an applicant has to demonstrate not only that a particular defence witness was not examined, but also that the examination of that witness was necessary and that the refusal to call the witness prejudiced the rights of the defence (see Dorokhov v. Russia, no. 66802/01, §§ 74-75, 14 February 2008, and Murtazaliyeva, cited above, § 148).
• EGMR, 17.03.2022 - 77612/11

  ISGANDAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 6383/15

  Having regard to these circumstances, the Court notes that there are sufficient counterbalancing factors to conclude that the domestic courts' decision not to hear those particular victims at trial did not undermine the overall fairness of the proceedings (compare Isgandarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 77612/11, § 18, 17 March 2022).
• EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 36814/06

  CHUKAYEV v. RUSSIA