Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ABBASOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 24271/05
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05

  The Court reiterates that its judgments are essentially declaratory in nature and that, in general, it is primarily for the State concerned to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the means to be used in its domestic legal order in order to discharge its obligation under Article 46 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210, ECHR 2005-IV, and Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 40997/98

  TAHIR DURAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05

  A similar position was adopted in cases concerning an infringement of the right to examine prosecution witnesses (see Bracci v. Italy, no. 36822/02, § 75, 13 October 2005) and cases where the applicants had been convicted by courts that did not meet the Convention requirements of independence and impartiality (see, among other authorities, Gençel v. Turkey, no. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003; Tahir Duran v. Turkey, no. 40997/98, § 23, 29 January 2004; and Öcalan, cited above, § 210).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05

  In other exceptional cases, the nature of the violation found may be such as to leave no real choice as to the measures required to remedy it and the Court may decide to indicate only one such measure (see, for example, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 202, ECHR 2004-II).

 
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  SOMOGYI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05

  Furthermore, in a number of cases concerning an infringement of the right to take part in the trial, the Court has held that the most appropriate form of redress for a breach of the fairness requirements of Article 6 would be for the applicant to be given a retrial (see, among other authorities, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV, and Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 126, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 36822/02

  BRACCI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05

  A similar position was adopted in cases concerning an infringement of the right to examine prosecution witnesses (see Bracci v. Italy, no. 36822/02, § 75, 13 October 2005) and cases where the applicants had been convicted by courts that did not meet the Convention requirements of independence and impartiality (see, among other authorities, Gençel v. Turkey, no. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003; Tahir Duran v. Turkey, no. 40997/98, § 23, 29 January 2004; and Öcalan, cited above, § 210).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05

  The Court further recalls that, in certain cases, it found that the presence in person of the accused at a hearing of an appeal where only points of law were considered was not crucial (see, for example, Kremzow v. Austria, judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, and Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168).
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

  KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05

  The Court further recalls that, in certain cases, it found that the presence in person of the accused at a hearing of an appeal where only points of law were considered was not crucial (see, for example, Kremzow v. Austria, judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, and Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168).
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 16757/90

  STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05

  This right is implicit in the very notion of an adversarial procedure and can also be derived from the guarantees contained in sub-paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph 3 of Article 6 (see Colozza, cited above, p. 14, § 27, and Stanford v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 282-A, pp. 10-11, § 26).
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05

  This means that both prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed and the evidence presented by the other party (see Brandstetter v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 27, §§ 66-67).

• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  In other exceptional cases, where the very nature of the violation found is such as to leave no real choice between measures capable of remedying it, the Court may decide to indicate only one such measure (see Aleksanyan, cited above, § 239, and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, § 37, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 35485/05

  HUSEYN AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  In such circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA

  In other exceptional cases, the nature of the violation found may be such as to leave no real choice as to the measures required to remedy it and the Court may decide to indicate only one such measure (see Assanidze, cited above; see also Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 35 et seq., 17 January 2008).

 
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 16133/08

  INSANOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In these circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 42502/06

  MUMINOV v. RUSSIA

  Exceptionally, with a view to helping the respondent State to fulfil its obligations under Article 46, the Court will seek to indicate the type of measure that might be taken in order to put an end to a systemic situation it has found to exist (see Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, § 37, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  JANNATOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In these circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 10.04.2014 - 22062/07

  LAYIJOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In these circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008; and Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009).
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 27065/05

  ABUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In other exceptional cases, where the very nature of the violation found is such as to leave no real choice between measures capable of remedying it, the Court may decide to indicate only one such measure (see Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, § 37, 17 January 2008, and Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 239, 22 December 2008).
• EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 27304/07

  EFENDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In these circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 24510/06

  ABDULGADIROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In such circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the appellate proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 16664/07

  ABAKAROVA v. RUSSIA