Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SARGSYAN c. AZERBAÏDJAN

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 9, Art. 13+3, Art. 13, Art. 13+8, Art. 13+9, Art. 13+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 14+3, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 14+9, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Exceptions préliminaires jointes au fond (incompétence victime non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) Partiellement recevable Partiellement irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SARGSYAN v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 9, Art. 13+3, Art. 13, Art. 13+8, Art. 13+9, Art. 13+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 14+3, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 14+9, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objections joined to merits (lack of jurisdiction victim non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan

  [15.09.2010]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.12.2011 - 40167/06
• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 40167/06
• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 40167/06

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (20)

• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2011 - 40167/06

  Similarly the Court has found that restrictions ratione loci attached to declarations under former Articles 25 and 46 of the Convention, accepting the right of individual petition and the jurisdiction of the (old) Court, respectively, were invalid (see Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, § 89, Series A no. 310).

  That may be as a result of military occupation by the armed forces of another State which effectively controls the territory concerned (see Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), judgment of 23 March 1995, Series A no. 310, and Cyprus v. Turkey, §§ 76-80, cited above, and also cited in the above-mentioned Bankovic and Others decision, §§ 70-71), acts of war or rebellion, or the acts of a foreign State supporting the installation of a separatist State within the territory of the State concerned.

• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2011 - 40167/06

  Secondly, while accepting that Gulistan was on the internationally recognised territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Government argued that the presumption of jurisdiction in respect of a State's territory could be rebutted in exceptional circumstances where the State was prevented from exercising its authority in part of its territory, for instance on account of military occupation by the armed forces of another State which effectively controlled the territory concerned (Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 312, ECHR 2004-VII).

  The Court already had to examine similar issues in its admissibility decision in the case of Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC] (dec.) (no. 48787/99, 4 July 2001).

• EGMR, 02.03.2005 - 71916/01

  Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetzes über die Wiedergutmachung von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2011 - 40167/06

  71916/01, 71917/01 and 10260/02, § 74, ECHR 2005-V; and Preussische Treuhand GmbH and Co. KG a.A. v. Poland (dec.), no. 47550/06, §§ 57-62, 7 October 2008).

 
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

  Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2011 - 40167/06

  According to the Court's case-law the deprivation of an individual's home or property is in principle an instantaneous act and does not produce a continuing situation of "deprivation" in respect of the rights concerned (Blecic, cited above, § 86; see also, among many others, Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, §§ 84-86, ECHR 2001-VIII; Maltzan and Others v. Germany (dec.) [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2011 - 40167/06

  By way of comparison the applicant referred to the Court's decision in Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) (nos. 46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, ECHR 2010-..) in which the Court had developed criteria for assessing the effectiveness of a remedy designed to provide redress for loss of property and home in the context of an international conflict.
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14556/89

  PAPAMICHALOPOULOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2011 - 40167/06

  Similarly, the case of Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece, (24 June 1993, §§ 39-46, Series A no. 260-B) concerned the occupation of the applicants" land, which was unlawful under domestic law.
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2011 - 40167/06

  Such persons must be able to show that they are "directly affected" by the measure complained of (see, for instance, Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 52, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 47550/06

  Fall Preußische Treuhand gegen Polen

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2011 - 40167/06

  71916/01, 71917/01 and 10260/02, § 74, ECHR 2005-V; and Preussische Treuhand GmbH and Co. KG a.A. v. Poland (dec.), no. 47550/06, §§ 57-62, 7 October 2008).
• EGMR, 12.01.2006 - 18888/02

  IÇYER c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2011 - 40167/06

  This approach was confirmed in a very similar case also concerning eviction of villagers, Ä°çyer v. Turkey (dec.) (no. 18888/02, § 73, ECHR 2006-I).
• EGMR - 14163/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2011 - 40167/06

  By way of comparison the applicant referred to the Court's decision in Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) (nos. 46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, ECHR 2010-..) in which the Court had developed criteria for assessing the effectiveness of a remedy designed to provide redress for loss of property and home in the context of an international conflict.
• EGMR - 21819/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 19993/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 10200/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 13466/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 12.12.2001 - 52207/99

  V. und B. B., Ž. S., M. S., D. J. und D. S. gegen Belgien, Dänemark, …
• EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

  BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 48205/99

  GENTILHOMME, SCHAFF-BENHADJI ET ZEROUKI c. FRANCE