Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AHMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  AHMADOV c. AZERBAÏDJAN et 4 autres affaires

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 53124/09

  GENOVESE v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 32538/10

  The Court's assessment 42. The Court reiterates that the notion of "private life" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention is a broad concept which embraces multiple aspects of a person's physical and social identity (see Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, § 30, 11 October 2011, and Ramadan v. Malta, no. 76136/12, § 62, 21 June 2016).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76136/12

  RAMADAN v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 32538/10

  The Court's assessment 42. The Court reiterates that the notion of "private life" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention is a broad concept which embraces multiple aspects of a person's physical and social identity (see Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, § 30, 11 October 2011, and Ramadan v. Malta, no. 76136/12, § 62, 21 June 2016).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07

  PIECHOWICZ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 32538/10

  Consequently, domestic law must also indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the relevant discretion conferred on the public authorities so as to ensure to individuals the minimum degree of protection to which they are entitled under the rule of law in a democratic society (see Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, § 212, 17 April 2012, and Tasev v. North Macedonia, no. 9825/13, § 36, 16 May 2019).
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 42387/13

  K2 v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 32538/10

  Although the right to citizenship is not as such guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, it cannot be ruled out that an arbitrary denial of citizenship might in certain circumstances raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention because of the impact of such a denial on the private life of the individual (see Karassev v. Finland (dec.), no. 31414/96, ECHR 1999-II; Genovese, cited above, § 30; and K2 v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42387/13, § 49, 7 February 2017).
• EGMR, 16.05.2019 - 9825/13

  TASEV v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 32538/10

  Consequently, domestic law must also indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the relevant discretion conferred on the public authorities so as to ensure to individuals the minimum degree of protection to which they are entitled under the rule of law in a democratic society (see Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, § 212, 17 April 2012, and Tasev v. North Macedonia, no. 9825/13, § 36, 16 May 2019).

• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 18269/18

  KRACHUNOVA v. BULGARIA

  Even if this latter point carries less significance in the instant case than in cases involving cross-border trafficking, the retention of the applicant's identify card still entailed a significant limitation on her freedom of movement - especially since identity documents could often be required for various routine tasks (see, mutatis mutandis, Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 97, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts), and Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32538/10, § 46, 30 January 2020).
• 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, 13.01.2022 - 1480/16

  HASHEMI ET AUTRES c. AZERBAÏDJAN

  Ainsi, une déchéance arbitraire de nationalité peut, dans certaines circonstances, poser un problème au regard de l'article 8 de la Convention du fait de son impact sur la vie privée de l'intéressé (Alpeyeva et Dzhalagoniya c. Russie, nos 7549/09 et 33330/11, § 108, 12 juin 2018, Ahmadov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 32538/10, § 42, 30 janvier 2020, et Ghoumid et autres c. France, nos 52273/16 et 4 autres, § 43, 25 juin 2020).
• EGMR, 13.07.2023 - 1/16

  EMIN HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  Although neither the right to citizenship nor the right to renounce citizenship is guaranteed as such by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court has held in a number of cases that the following actions may, in certain circumstances, raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention because of their impact on the private life of the individual: arbitrary denial of citizenship (see Karassev v. Finland (dec.), no. 31414/96, ECHR 1999-II; Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32538/10, §§ 42-45, 30 January 2020; and Hashemi and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos.
• EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 27801/19

  JOHANSEN v. DENMARK

  In determining whether a revocation of citizenship is in breach of Article 8, the Court addresses two separate issues: whether the revocation was arbitrary, and what the consequences of revocation were for the applicant (see, for example, Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32538/10, § 43, 30 January 2020; Alpeyeva and Dzhalagoniya v. Russia, nos. 7549/09 and 33330/11, § 108, 12 June 2018; Mansour Said Abdul Salam Mubarak v. Denmark (dec.), no. 74411/16, § 62, 22 January 2019; and K2 v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42387/13, § 49, 7 February 2017).