Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RASUL JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 18+5-1-c - Limitation on use of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RASUL JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 18 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (24)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 44009/05

  SHTUKATUROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14

  In particular, the Court considered that Article 34 of the Convention had been breached where: an applicant had been unable to discuss issues concerning an application before the Court with his representative without their being separated by a glass partition (see Cebotari, cited above, §§ 58-68, 13 November 2007); an applicant had been unable to communicate with his representative before the Court during his treatment in hospital (see Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 140, ECHR 2008); and where an applicant's contact with his representative before the Court had been restricted on the grounds that the representative was not a professional advocate and did not belong to any Bar association (see Zakharkin v. Russia, no. 1555/04, §§ 152-60, 10 June 2010).
• EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 70276/01

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (hinreichender Verdacht nach Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14

  It can only be applied in conjunction with other Articles of the Convention (see Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 75, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 15.04.2012 - 29520/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14

  The Contracting Party's procedural obligations under Articles 34 and 38 of the Convention must be enforced irrespective of the eventual outcome of the proceedings, and in such a manner as to avoid any actual or potential chilling effect on the applicants or their representatives (see Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, § 209, ECHR 2013).

 
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14

  By contrast, where the domestic formalities were easy to comply with, no issue arose under Article 34 (see Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, § 119, 25 October 2007).
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 1555/04

  ZAKHARKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14

  In particular, the Court considered that Article 34 of the Convention had been breached where: an applicant had been unable to discuss issues concerning an application before the Court with his representative without their being separated by a glass partition (see Cebotari, cited above, §§ 58-68, 13 November 2007); an applicant had been unable to communicate with his representative before the Court during his treatment in hospital (see Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 140, ECHR 2008); and where an applicant's contact with his representative before the Court had been restricted on the grounds that the representative was not a professional advocate and did not belong to any Bar association (see Zakharkin v. Russia, no. 1555/04, §§ 152-60, 10 June 2010).
• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 23610/03

  MELNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14

  The Court has, however, accepted that compliance by a representative with certain formal requirements might be necessary before obtaining access to a detainee, for instance for security reasons or in order to prevent collusion or some action to pervert the course of the investigation or justice (see Melnikov v. Russia, no. 23610/03, § 96, 14 January 2010).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that the persistence of reasonable suspicion that an arrested person has committed an offence is a prerequisite for the lawfulness of his continued detention (see, among many other authorities, Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, p. 40, § 4, Series A no. 9, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 44, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14

  A person may be detained under Article 5 § 1 (c) only in the context of criminal proceedings, for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on "reasonable suspicion" of "having committed an offence" (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 50, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that the persistence of reasonable suspicion that an arrested person has committed an offence is a prerequisite for the lawfulness of his continued detention (see, among many other authorities, Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, p. 40, § 4, Series A no. 9, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 44, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 22.05.2014 - 15172/13

  ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14

  Accordingly, while reasonable suspicion must exist at the time of the arrest and initial detention, in cases of prolonged detention it must also be shown that the suspicion persisted and remained "reasonable" throughout the detention (see Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 15172/13, § 90, 22 May 2014).

• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

  Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

  The Court finds that such evidence at the relevant time was sufficient to satisfy an objective observer that the first applicant might have committed the offence he was accused of (compare with Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 55, ECHR 2004-IV, and contrast with Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, § 53, 11 October 2016; Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69981/14, §§ 121-32, 17 March 2016; Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 15172/13, §§ 90-99, 22 May 2014; and Kandzhov v. Bulgaria, no. 68294/01, §§ 57-61, 6 November 2008).
• EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 13252/17

  AHMET HÜSREV ALTAN v. TURKEY

  In this regard, the fact that a suspicion is held in good faith is insufficient (see Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69981/14, § 116, 17 March 2016).

  In this regard, the fact that a suspicion is held in good faith is insufficient (see Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69981/14, § 116, 17 March 2016).

• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 66375/17

  PARILDAK c. TÜRKIYE

  Ce qui peut passer pour « plausible'dépend de l'ensemble des circonstances (Fox, Campbell et Hartley c. Royaume-Uni, 30 août 1990, § 32, série A no 182 ; voir aussi, Ilgar Mammadov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 15172/13, § 88, 22 mai 2014, Rasul Jafarov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 69981/14, §§ 117-118, 17 mars 2016, et Sahin Alpay, précité, § 103).

 
• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 15064/12

  RAGIP ZARAKOLU c. TURQUIE

  Ce qui peut passer pour « plausible'dépend de l'ensemble des circonstances (Fox, Campbell et Hartley c. Royaume-Uni, 30 août 1990, § 32, série A nº 182, voir aussi Ilgar Mammadov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 15172/13, § 88, 22 mai 2014, Rasul Jafarov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 69981/14, §§ 117-118, 17 mars 2016, et Sahin Alpay c. Turquie, no 16538/17, § 103, 20 mars 2018).

  Un tour d'horizon de celle-ci montre que lorsqu'un grief tiré de l'absence de raisons plausibles repose uniquement sur l'aspect factuel de l'affaire, comme c'est le cas en l'espèce, la conclusion de la Cour se fonde seulement sur cet aspect (Fox, Campbell et Hartley c. Royaume-Uni, 30 août 1990, § 35, série A no 182, Ipek et autres c. Turquie, nos 17019/02 et 30070/02, § 31, 3 février 2009, Ilgar Mammadov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 15172/13, §§ 100-102, 22 mai 2014, Rasul Jafarov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 69981/14, §§ 133-134, 17 mars 2016).

• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  Nothing in that material appears to cast doubt on the reasonableness of the suspicion against the applicant, either on the facts or as a matter of criminal law (compare Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 55, ECHR 2004-IV, and contrast Lukanov v. Bulgaria, 20 March 1997, §§ 42-45, Reports 1997-II; Kandzhov v. Bulgaria, no. 68294/01, §§ 57-61, 6 November 2008; Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 15172/13, §§ 90-99, 22 May 2014; and Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69981/14, §§ 121-32, 17 March 2016).
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 48653/13

  RASHAD HASANOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  A detailed description of the relevant parts of the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court on the application of the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in the administration of justice, dated 30 March 2006, and on the application of the legislation by the courts during the consideration of applications for the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of an accused, dated 3 November 2009, can be found in Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan (no. 69981/14, §§ 50-76 and §§ 79-80, 17 March 2016).

  A person may be detained under Article 5 § 1 (c) only in the context of criminal proceedings, for the purpose of bringing him or her before the competent legal authority on "reasonable suspicion" of "having committed an offence" (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 50, ECHR 2000-IX, and Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69981/14, § 114, 17 March 2016).

• EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 19699/18

  AKGÜN c. TURQUIE

  " (Fox, Campbell et Hartley c. Royaume-Uni, 30 août 1990, § 32, série A no 182 ; voir aussi Ilgar Mammadov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 15172/13, § 88, 22 mai 2014, Rasul Jafarov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 69981/14, §§ 117-118, 17 mars 2016, et Kavala, précité, § 127)[5].
• EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 885/12

  "Safarov"-Entscheidung

  Nevertheless, the Court accepts that the applicant must have suffered on account of the unauthorised reproduction of his book and its online publication, which justifies an award of just satisfaction (compare, mutatis mutandis, Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69981/14, § 193, 17 March 2016).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 19.11.2019 - C-653/19

  Spetsializirana prokuratura - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle …

  56 Vgl. u. a. EGMR, 17. März 2016, Rasul Jafarov gegen Aserbaidschan (CE:ECHR:2016:0317JUD006998114, § 119 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 21882/09

  ISRAILOV v. RUSSIA

  As to the part of the claim concerning his loss of earnings, while being aware of the applicant's impractical situation, the Court notes that it is completely unsubstantiated (compare Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69981/14, § 193, 17 March 2016, and Feilazoo v. Malta, no. 6865/19, § 139, 11 March 2021) and therefore rejects it.
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 54547/16

  SHIRKHANYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 72/17

  ATILLA TAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 67483/12

  ISÇI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 31775/16

  SARANOVIC v. MONTENEGRO
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 19842/15

  HAZIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 12254/20

  YAYGIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR - 17795/22 (anhängig)

  ÜRKÜT v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR - 53205/17 (anhängig)

  ORUJOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 49020/08

  MYASNIK MALKHASYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 39783/15

  BORG v. MALTA
• EGMR - 46062/22 (anhängig)

  ERAT c. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR - 7611/22 (anhängig)

  KiLiÇ c. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 12.09.2017 - 36867/14

  GROBENSKI v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 70777/12

  VASILENKO v. UKRAINE