Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
HUSEYNOVA 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 - claim dismissed (Article 41 - ...
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... (7) Neu Zitiert selbst (29)
- EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93
OZGUR GUNDEM c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10
The Court considers that the present case should also be distinguished from the case 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).[6] See Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, 16 March 2000, § 43, ECHR 2000-III; Dink v. Turkey, cited above, § 106; and Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, no. 39293/98, § 38, 29 February 2000.
- EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 2668/07
DINK c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10
2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, §§ 64-75, 14 September 2010).2668/07 and 4 others, § 137, 14 September 2010.
- EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 38187/97
ADALI v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10
However, for the Court, the required evidentiary standard of proof for the purposes of the Convention is that of "beyond reasonable doubt", and such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, § 161; Adali v. Turkey, no. 38187/97, § 216, 31 March 2005; and Giuliani and Gaggio, cited above, § 181).[7] See Adali v. Turkey, no. 38187/97, 31 March 2005.
- EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00
Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10
[4] See, for example, Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 89, ECHR 2004-VIII, and Silih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 192, 9 April 2009. - EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
- EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06
FARHAD ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10
Moreover, legal costs are only recoverable in so far as they relate to the violation found (see Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 176, ECHR 2008, and Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, §§ 245-46, 9 November 2010). - EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10
Nevertheless, since Article 2, which safeguards the right to life and sets out the circumstances when deprivation of life may be justified, ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention, from which no derogation is permitted, the Court must subject deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-47, Series A no. 324, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 131, ECHR 2014). - EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02
Opuz ./. Türkei
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10
It also extends, in appropriate circumstances, to a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual or individuals whose lives are at risk from the criminal acts of another individual (see Kiliç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 62, ECHR 2000-III; Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, §§ 49-50, 15 January 2009; and Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 128, ECHR 2009). - EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88
OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10
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, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09
CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10
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, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08
CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06
PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93
Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …
- EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 5878/08
ARMANI DA SILVA c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99
PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 34056/02
GONGADZE c. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 57671/00
SLIMANI v. FRANCE
- EGMR - 45886/07
[FRE]
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94
TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93
KILIÇ v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 25091/07
ENUKIDZE AND GIRGVLIANI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07
MUCIBABIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 27866/03
BEKER v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 44297/06
MEZHIYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 35802/05
FRANDES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02
NARIN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 3575/05
EMRAH AYDINLAR ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54415/09
DEARI AND OTHERS v.
- EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 72254/11
BOGDANOVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 72611/14
TAGIYEVA v. AZERBAIJAN
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, 17.07.2018 - 15086/07
Mord an Journalistin: Russland wegen Politkowskaja-Ermittlungen verurteilt
The domestic authorities" scrutiny in the case concerning a contract killing must aim to go beyond identification of a hitman and it is incumbent on the Court to satisfy itself that the investigation in the present case has addressed this important point (see, for example, Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 176, ECHR 2005-XI and Huseynova v. Azerbaijan, no. 10653/10, §§ 115-16, 13 April 2017). - EGMR, 10.01.2019 - 65286/13
KHADIJA ISMAYILOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
The Court has had to deal with a number of cases concerning respondent States" obligations to investigate criminal offences against journalists (see, for examples, Adali v. Turkey, no. 38187/97, § 231, 31 March 2005; Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, §§ 8-15 and 179, ECHR 2005-XI; Uzeyir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 54204/08, § 52, 29 January 2015; Huseynova v. Azerbaijan, no. 10653/10, § 115, 13 April 2017; and Mazepa and Others v. Russia, no. 15086/07, § 73, 17 July 2018).
- EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 32734/11
FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)
Furthermore, via an acquaintance of his the applicant had received threats made by a certain public official that he would remain in prison indefinitely if he continued to pursue his journalistic enquiries - in particular, if he publicised and sent to the Court information that he had uncovered about the death of his friend, Elmar Huseynov, a journalist (see Huseynova v. Azerbaijan, no. 10653/10, 13 April 2017). - 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). - EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 43146/15
NEMTSOVA v. RUSSIA
The domestic authorities' scrutiny in respect of a case concerning a contract killing must aim to go beyond the identification of a hitman, and it is incumbent on the Court to satisfy itself that the investigation in the present case addressed this important point (see, among others, Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 176, ECHR 2005-XI; Huseynova v. Azerbaijan, no. 10653/10, §§ 115-16, 13 April 2017; and Mazepa and Others, cited above, § 75). - EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 24738/19
GASI AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
28955/06 and 3 others, § 59, ECHR 2011; and Huseynova v. Azerbaijan, no. 10653/10, § 120, 13 April 2017).