Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MALIK BABAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MALIK BABAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30500/11

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 133, ECHR 2006-IX, and Asadbeyli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 3653/05 and 5 others, § 204, 11 December 2012).
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 3653/05

  ASADBEYLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30500/11

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 133, ECHR 2006-IX, and Asadbeyli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 3653/05 and 5 others, § 204, 11 December 2012).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 31805/06

  RIZVANOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30500/11

  Moreover, unlike the cases in which the applicants were able to produce a contract for legal services, according to which, the amounts due were to be paid in the event that the Court found a violation of the applicants" rights (see Pirali Orujov v. Azerbaijan, no. 8460/07, §§ 72-75, 3 February 2011, and Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 31805/06, §§ 85-89, 17 April 2012), in the present case no such a contract was submitted to the Court.

 
• EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 8460/07

  PIRALI ORUJOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30500/11

  Moreover, unlike the cases in which the applicants were able to produce a contract for legal services, according to which, the amounts due were to be paid in the event that the Court found a violation of the applicants" rights (see Pirali Orujov v. Azerbaijan, no. 8460/07, §§ 72-75, 3 February 2011, and Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 31805/06, §§ 85-89, 17 April 2012), in the present case no such a contract was submitted to the Court.
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30500/11

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-47, Series A no. 324).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30500/11

  The investigation must be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to the establishment of the facts and, where appropriate, the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Ogur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 88, ECHR 1999-III, and Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç, cited above, § 172).
• EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 5878/08

  ARMANI DA SILVA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30500/11

  The obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force, either by State officials or private individuals (see Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 103, ECHR 1999-IV; Branko Tomasic and Others, cited above, § 62; Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, § 169, 14 April 2015; and Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 230, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30500/11

  The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life (see, mutatis mutandis, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 69, ECHR 2002-II, and Mezhiyeva v. Russia, no. 44297/06, § 72, 16 April 2015).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30500/11

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see, among many other authorities, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, §§ 109-11, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30500/11

  The obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force, either by State officials or private individuals (see Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 103, ECHR 1999-IV; Branko Tomasic and Others, cited above, § 62; Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, § 169, 14 April 2015; and Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 230, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94

  AKTAS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 13094/02

  HASAN ÇALISKAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 44297/06

  MEZHIYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 26470/10

  GÜZELAYDIN c. TURQUIE

• EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 34015/17

  SARDAR BABAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Accordingly, in so far as the lawyer is entitled to seek payment of his fees under the contract, the applicant may claim reimbursement of those fees (see Pirali Orujov v. Azerbaijan, no. 8460/07, § 74, 3 February 2011; Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 31805/06, § 89, 17 April 2012; Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 30500/11, § 97, 1 June 2017; Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, §§ 371-72, 28 November 2017; and Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32538/10, § 62, 30 January 2020).
• EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 69517/11

  NANA MURADYAN v. ARMENIA

  In the context of individuals undergoing compulsory military service, the Court has previously had occasion to emphasise that, as with persons in custody, conscripts are under the exclusive control of the authorities of the State, since any events in the army lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them (see Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 92, 17 January 2013; and Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 30500/11, § 66, 1 June 2017).
• EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 14604/08

  MUSHFIG MAMMADOV ET AUTRES c. AZERBAÏDJAN

  Conformément à l'article 60 du règlement de la Cour, tout requérant qui sollicite une satisfaction équitable doit soumettre par écrit ses prétentions, chiffrées et ventilées par rubrique et accompagnées des justificatifs pertinents, faute de quoi la chambre peut rejeter tout ou partie de la demande (Malik Babayev c. Azerbaïdjan, no 30500/11, § 97, 1er juin 2017, et Ilgar Mammadov c. Azerbaïdjan (no 2), no 919/15, § 272, 16 novembre 2017).

 
• EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 32734/11

  FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  Furthermore, under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court any claim for just satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing together with the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, failing which the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part (see Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 30500/11, § 97, 1 June 2017).
• EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 50988/13

  CITRARO ET MOLINO c. ITALIE

  En tout état de cause, elle estime que les personnes chargées de l'enquête, à savoir les membres du parquet de Messine et les carabinieri, sont indépendantes des personnes impliquées dans le décès (Malik Babayev c. Azerbaïdjan, no 30500/11, § 81, 1er juin 2017).
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 29906/14

  DIMAKSYAN v. ARMENIA

  In the context of individuals undergoing compulsory military service, the Court has previously had occasion to emphasise that, as with persons in custody, conscripts are under the exclusive control of the authorities of the State, since any events in the army lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them (see Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 92, 17 January 2013; and Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 30500/11, § 66, 1 June 2017).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 3959/14

  KHUDOROSHKO v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, not every claimed risk to life can entail a Convention requirement for the authorities to take operational measures to prevent that risk from materialising (see Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 30500/11, § 66, 1 June 2017, with further references).
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 67351/13

  HOVHANNISYAN AND KARAPETYAN v. ARMENIA

  In the context of individuals undergoing compulsory military service, the Court has previously had occasion to emphasise that, as with persons in custody, conscripts are under the exclusive control of the authorities of the State, since any events in the army lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them (see Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 92, 17 January 2013; and Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 30500/11, § 66, 1 June 2017).
• EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 2303/12

  MANUKYAN v. ARMENIA

  Substantive limb 17. The Court will examine the matter in the light of the relevant general principles, as summarised in Mosendz v. Ukraine (no. 52013/08, §§ 90-93, 17 January 2013), Perevedentsevy v. Russia (no. 39583/05, §§ 91-94, 24 April 2014), Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 30500/11, §§ 64-68, 1 June 2017) and most recently in Boychenko v. Russia (no. 8663/08, §§ 76-80, 12 October 2021, with further references).
• EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 19355/09

  FILIPPOVY v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, not every claimed risk to life can entail a Convention requirement for the authorities to take operational measures to prevent that risk from materialising (see Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 30500/11, § 66, 1 June 2017, with further references).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 62080/09

  LYUBOV VASILYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.09.2020 - 69460/12

  SHURIYYA ZEYNALOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 69997/11

  GVOZDEVA v. RUSSIA