Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TAGIYEVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  TAGIYEVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (26)

• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10

  HUSEYNOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 72611/14

  The relevant provisions of the domestic law and the relevant international documents are described in detail in the Court's judgment in Huseynova v. Azerbaijan (no. 10653/10, §§ 61-62 and 72, 13 April 2017).

  In particular, the Court notes that although the applicant argued that the State had failed to protect her husband's right to life, she did not dispute the Government's submissions that her husband had never applied to the domestic authorities or informed them of any danger or threat to his life before his stabbing (compare Huseynova v. Azerbaijan, no. 10653/10, § 100, 13 April 2017, and contrast Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 167, ECHR 2005-XI).

• EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93

  OZGUR GUNDEM c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 72611/14

  The Court considers that the present case should also be distinguished from that of Özgür Gündem, where the domestic authorities - which were aware of a series of violent actions against a newspaper and people associated with it - did not take any action to protect the newspaper and its journalists (see Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 44, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 25091/07

  ENUKIDZE AND GIRGVLIANI v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 72611/14

  That situation deprived the applicant of the opportunity to safeguard her legitimate interests and prevented sufficient scrutiny of the investigation by the public (see Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, §§ 44-48, ECHR 2004-IX; Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, § 49, 24 March 2009; and Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia, no. 25091/07, § 250, 26 April 2011).

 
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 72611/14

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the parties' submissions, and the conclusions reached above under Articles 2 and 10 of the Convention (see paragraphs 74 and 82 above), the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of that complaint in the present case (compare Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and Azer Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 3409/10, § 79, 22 July 2021).
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 15086/07

  Mord an Journalistin: Russland wegen Politkowskaja-Ermittlungen verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 72611/14

  In the present case, the Court observes that a number of relevant and timely investigative actions were carried out (see paragraphs 16-27 above) and it appears from the case file that the investigating authorities explored various possible motives behind the killing of the applicant's husband, including the possibility that it could have been linked to his publications (see paragraphs 25, 36 and 42 above) (contrast Huseynova, cited above, § 115, and Mazepa and Others v. Russia, no. 15086/07, §§ 77-78, 17 July 2018).
• EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 3409/10

  AZER AHMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 72611/14

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the parties' submissions, and the conclusions reached above under Articles 2 and 10 of the Convention (see paragraphs 74 and 82 above), the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of that complaint in the present case (compare Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and Azer Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 3409/10, § 79, 22 July 2021).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 72611/14

  The Court has frequently stressed the fundamental role of freedom of expression in a democratic society, in particular where, through the press, it serves to impart information and ideas of general interest which the public is, moreover, entitled to receive (see, for example, Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216, and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 131, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 57671/00

  SLIMANI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 72611/14

  That situation deprived the applicant of the opportunity to safeguard her legitimate interests and prevented sufficient scrutiny of the investigation by the public (see Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, §§ 44-48, ECHR 2004-IX; Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, § 49, 24 March 2009; and Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia, no. 25091/07, § 250, 26 April 2011).
• EGMR, 10.01.2019 - 65286/13

  KHADIJA ISMAYILOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 72611/14

  In particular, the positive obligations under Article 10 of the Convention require States to create, while establishing an effective system of protection of authors or journalists, a favourable environment for participation in public debate by all the persons concerned, enabling them to express their opinions and ideas without fear, even if they run counter to those defended by the official authorities or by a significant part of public opinion, or are even irritating or shocking to them (see Dink, cited above, § 137, and Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan, nos. 65286/13 and 57270/14, § 158, 10 January 2019).
• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 72611/14

  The Court also reiterates that the key importance of freedom of expression as one of the preconditions for a functioning democracy is such that the genuine, effective exercise of this freedom is not dependent merely on the State's duty not to interfere, but may call for positive measures of protection, even in the sphere of relations between individuals (see Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06 and 3 others, § 59, ECHR 2011, with further references).
• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 27866/03

  BEKER v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.09.2020 - 69460/12

  SHURIYYA ZEYNALOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 51164/07

  SAKIT ZAHIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 81024/12

  BAGIROV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 2594/07

  NAJAFLI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 50283/13

  FOUNTAS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 54204/08

  UZEYIR JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 49192/08

  ALLAHVERDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 58717/10

  NASIROV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 74288/14

  DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS RESOURCE CENTRE AND MUSTAFAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 37703/97

  Verantwortung des Staates für Mord durch beurlaubte Gefangene; Verpflichtung des …
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 34056/02

  GONGADZE c. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 13274/08

  TAGIYEV AND HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 2668/07

  DINK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 31.03.2020 - 82284/17

  JEANTY c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 62903/15

  KURT v. AUSTRIA

• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 34358/16

  AKHMEDNABIYEV AND KAMALOV v. RUSSIA

  The domestic authorities were therefore informed about the threats to Mr Akhmednabiyev's life (see, in the same vein, Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07 and 4 others, §§ 66-70, 14 September 2010, Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 167, ECHR 2005-XI, and contrast with Tagiyeva v. Azerbaijan, no. 72611/14, § 65, 7 July 2022).
• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 24950/14

  ABDULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court deems it necessary to reiterate that it cannot accept the investigating authorities' reliance on the domestic law to justify such a situation and finds it unacceptable that under the relevant domestic law, the applicant and his lawyer had no access whatsoever to the case file during the investigation, since such a state of affairs deprives the investigation of an important guarantee, that of the involvement of the family of the deceased or disappeared person (see Huseynova v. Azerbaijan, no. 10653/10, § 113, 13 April 2017, and Tagiyeva v. Azerbaijan, no. 72611/14, § 73, 7 July 2022).