Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 18, Art. 18+5, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention) ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 18 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.05.2014 - 15172/13
• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 15172/13
• EGMR, 24.09.2015 - 15172/13
• EGMR, 08.06.2016 - 15172/13
• EGMR, 25.10.2017 - 15172/13
• EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 15172/13
• EGMR, 29.05.2019 - 15172/13
• EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 15172/13
• EGMR, 03.09.2020 - 15172/13

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2014 - 15172/13

  However, it is clear that the remarks made in the statement had a direct link with the criminal investigation instituted against the applicant and other persons in connection with the Ismayilli events (compare Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 37, Series A no. 308).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2014 - 15172/13

  It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion that the person charged with a criminal offence is guilty before he has been so proved according to the law (see Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 38, Series A no. 62), but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations, which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority (see Allenet de Ribemont, cited above, § 41, and Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-43, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11

  Julija Tymoschenko

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2014 - 15172/13

  In Tymoshenko v. Ukraine (no. 49872/11, § 299, 30 April 2013) the reasoning formally advanced by the authorities suggested that the actual purpose of the detention was to punish the applicant for a lack of respect towards the court which it was claimed she had been manifesting by her behaviour during the judicial proceedings.

 
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 42095/98

  DAKTARAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2014 - 15172/13

  It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion that the person charged with a criminal offence is guilty before he has been so proved according to the law (see Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 38, Series A no. 62), but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations, which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority (see Allenet de Ribemont, cited above, § 41, and Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-43, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 70276/01

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2014 - 15172/13

  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, 23.10.2008 - 13470/02

  KHUZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2014 - 15172/13

  The Court has consistently emphasised the importance of the choice of words by public officials in their statements before a person has been tried and found guilty of a particular criminal offence (see Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 94, 23 October 2008, with further references).
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 6492/11

  Luzenko ./. Ukraine

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2014 - 15172/13

  In Lutsenko v. Ukraine (no. 6492/11, §§ 108-09, 3 July 2012) the prosecuting authorities seeking the applicant's arrest explicitly indicated the applicant's communication with the media as one of the grounds for his arrest, such reasoning clearly demonstrating that his arrest was an attempt to punish him for publicly disagreeing with accusations against him.
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2014 - 15172/13

  In Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands [(19 April 1994, § 61, Series A no. 288], the European Court of Human Rights noted that the right to a fair trial required that a court should give reasons for its decisions.
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2014 - 15172/13

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that the persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a prerequisite for the lawfulness of the 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, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2014 - 15172/13

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that the persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a prerequisite for the lawfulness of the 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, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06

  FARHAD ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 16966/06

  MURADVERDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17

  Menschenrechtsgerichtshof fordert Freilassung von Selahattin Demirtas

  Accordingly, while reasonable suspicion must exist at the time of the arrest and initial detention, it must also be shown, in cases of prolonged detention, that the suspicion persisted and remained "reasonable" throughout the detention (see Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 15172/13, § 90, 22 May 2014).
• LG München I, 20.09.2017 - 15 O 21372/16

  Haftentschädigung nach Art. 5 Abs. 5 EMRK wegen rechtswidriger Abschiebungshaft

  Der Gerichtshof prüft regelmäßig, ob ausreichende objektive Elemente existierten, die einen objektiven Beobachter dazu bringen konnten, vernünftigerweise zu glauben, dass der Betroffene die die Haft begründenden Umstände verwirklicht hat (zur Untersuchungshaft EGMR, Urteil vom 22.05.2014, Az. 15172/13).
• 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).

 
• EuGH, 25.02.2021 - C-615/19

  Institutionelles Recht

  Wie das Gericht in Rn. 173 des angefochtenen Urteils im Wesentlichen ausgeführt hat, ergibt sich aus der Rechtsprechung des EGMR zum einen, dass die Unschuldsvermutung verletzt wird, wenn eine gerichtliche Entscheidung oder eine amtliche Erklärung über einen Angeklagten den Eindruck vermittelt, dass er schuldig sei, obwohl seine Schuld nicht zuvor rechtsförmlich nachgewiesen worden ist, und zum anderen die Behörden zwar die Öffentlichkeit über laufende Strafverfahren unterrichten dürfen, dies aber mit aller Diskretion und Zurückhaltung zu tun haben, die die Achtung der Unschuldsvermutung gebietet (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 22. Mai 2014, 11gar Mammadov/Azerbaïdjan, CE:ECHR:2014:0522JUD001517213, §§ 125 und 126).
• EGMR, 20.06.2023 - 25285/15

  KARACA c. TÜRKIYE

  La Cour rappelle aussi que si des soupçons plausibles doivent exister au moment de l'arrestation et de la détention initiale, il doit également être démontré, en cas de prolongation de la détention, que des soupçons persistent et qu'ils demeurent fondés sur des « raisons plausibles'tout au long de la détention (voir, parmi de nombreux autres exemples, Stögmüller c. Autriche, 10 novembre 1969, p. 40, § 4, série A nº 9, McKay c. Royaume-Uni [GC], nº 543/03, § 44, CEDH 2006-X, et Ilgar Mammadov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 15172/13, § 90, 22 mai 2014).

  Toutefois, l'existence de « raisons plausibles de soupçonner'la commission d'une infraction présuppose celle de faits ou de renseignements propres à persuader un observateur objectif que l'individu en cause peut avoir accompli l'infraction (Selahattin Demirta?Ÿ c. Turquie (no 2) [GC], no 14305/17, § 314, 22 décembre 2020, 11gar Mammadov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 15172/13, § 88, 22 mai 2014, Erdagöz c. Turquie, 22 octobre 1997, § 51, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997-VI, et Fox, Campbell et Hartley c. Royaume-Uni, 30 août 1990, § 32, série A no 182).

• OLG München, 15.03.2018 - 1 U 3473/17

  Begründeter Schadensersatz bei rechtswidriger Abschiebungshaft

  Die Kammer verweist insoweit auf die Entscheidung des EGMR vom 22.05.2014, Az.: 15172/13, und weist darauf hin, dass in dieser Entscheidung unklar bleibe, ob der Gerichtshof die Bewertung aus der Sicht ex ante oder ex post vornimmt und unter Berücksichtigung dieses Aspektes auch das Verhalten des Klägers im weiteren Verlauf des Zurückschiebeverfahrens gegebenenfalls zu berücksichtigen wäre.
• 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, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14

  RASUL JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  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, 19.04.2018 - 47145/14

  MAMMADLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  Accordingly, while reasonable suspicion must exist at the time of the arrest and initial detention, it must also be shown, in cases of prolonged detention, that the suspicion persisted and remained "reasonable" throughout the detention (see Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 15172/13, § 90, 22 May 2014).
• EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 3899/08

  HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The presumption of innocence enshrined in paragraph 2 of Article 6 is one of the elements of a fair criminal trial that is required by paragraph 1 (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308, and Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 15172/13, § 125, 22 May 2014).