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

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  HUSEYNOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (22)Zitiert selbst (41)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 2668/07

  [FRE]

  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, 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, 29.01.2015 - 54204/08

  UZEYIR JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10

  However, having regard to the material in the case file, it does not appear that adequate steps were taken during the investigation to inquire sufficiently into the motives behind the killing of Mr Huseynov and to investigate the possibility that the attack could have been linked to his work as a journalist (compare Adalı, cited above, § 231, and Uzeyir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 54204/08, § 52, 29 January 2015).

  [10] See Uzeyir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 54204/08, § 71, 29 January 2015.

• 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; Adalı v. Turkey, no. 38187/97, § 216, 31 March 2005; and Giuliani and Gaggio, cited above, § 181).

  [7] See Adalı 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 Šilih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 192, 9 April 2009.
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  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

  [FRE]

  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, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10

  The Court also reiterates that the key importance of freedom of expression as one of the preconditions for a functioning democracy is such that the genuine, effective exercise of this freedom is not dependent merely on the State's duty not to interfere, but may call for positive measures of protection, even in the sphere of relations between individuals (see Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06, § 59, with further references, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10

  The investigation must be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Oğur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 88, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 5878/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10

  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", also requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force, either by State officials or private individuals (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 103, ECHR 1999-IV; Branko Tomašić and Others, cited above, § 62; 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
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 34056/02
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 57671/00

  SLIMANI v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 25091/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06

  FARHAD ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 27866/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 10904/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 4704/04

  PALIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 15529/12

  BALÁZS v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 2594/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 37393/02

  RAJKOWSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 4762/05

  MIKAYIL MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 44297/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.04.2015 - 29823/13

  NJEZIC AND STIMAC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTER OF LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93

  KILIÇ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

  MURADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 72152/13

  CINDRIC AND BESLIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02

  NARIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07

  MUCIBABIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 35587/08

  ALIYEVA AND ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54415/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 35802/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 3575/05

  EMRAH AYDINLAR ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 27365/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 72254/11

  BOGDANOVIC v. CROATIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 36925/07

  GÜZELYURTLU AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS AND TURKEY

  In all cross-border cases the Court had made express reference to existing instruments binding upon the States concerned allowing for mutual assistance in criminal matters (referring to Rantsev, cited above, 241, and Huseynova v. Azerbaijan, no. 10653/10, § 111, 13 April 2017).
• EGMR, 08.09.2026 - 64510/17
  The Court does not see how the second applicant could have effectively challenged the decision in question in the domestic courts, without first receiving it and studying its contents (compare Estamirova v. Russia, no. 27365/07, § 94, 17 April 2012, and Huseynova v. Azerbaijan, no. 10653/10, § 82, 13 April 2017).
• 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, 10.09.2020 - 69460/12

  SHURIYYA ZEYNALOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The relevant provisions of the CCrP are described in detail in the Court's judgment in Huseynova v. Azerbaijan (no. 10653/10, §§ 61-62, 13 April 2017).

  The Court also cannot overlook the fact that the applicant, having no access to the material in the case file during the course of the investigation, could not have effectively challenged the investigating authorities' decisions or actions in court (compare Estamirova v. Russia, no. 27365/07, § 94, 17 April 2012, and Huseynova v. Azerbaijan, no. 10653/10, § 82, 13 April 2017).

• 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 and 1 other application

  The Court has had to deal with a number of cases concerning respondent States' obligations to investigate criminal offences against journalists (see, for examples, Adalı 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, 06.06.2023 - 36418/20

  Russland hat zu Nawalny nicht hinreichend ermittelt

  Failing to follow an obvious line of inquiry undermines to a decisive extent the investigation's ability to establish the circumstances of the case and, where appropriate, the identity of those responsible (see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç, cited above, § 175; Kolevi v. Bulgaria, no. 1108/02, § 201, 5 November 2009; Mazepa and Others v. Russia, no. 15086/07, § 78, 17 July 2018; Huseynova v. Azerbaijan, no. 10653/10, § 115, 13 April 2017; and Cerf v. Turkey, no. 12938/07, § 72, 3 May 2016).
• EGMR, 05.09.2024 - 39503/17

  MUKHTARLI v. AZERBAIJAN AND GEORGIA

  The Court considers that the applicant's allegations about his abduction, ill-treatment and forcible transfer to Azerbaijan and that they were related to his activities as a journalist were plausible; hence, the Georgian authorities were expected to act with particular diligence and promptness in investigating those allegations (see, mutatis mutandis, Huseynova, v. Azerbaijan, no. 10653/10, § 115, 13 April 2017; Uzeyir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 54204/08, § 52, 29 January 2015; Mazepa and Others v. Russia, no. 15086/07, § 73, 17 July 2018; and Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan (no. 3), no. 35283/14, §§ 119-20, 7 May 2020).
• EGMR, 28.05.2024 - 4573/22

  ZAREMA MUSAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Rn. 58 The Court refers to the relevant principles on positive and procedural obligations under Article 2 as established in its case-law and set out in Osman v. the United Kingdom (28 October 1998, §§ 115-16, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII), Huseynova v. Azerbaijan (no. 10653/10, §§ 105-16, 13 April 2017) and Kurt v. Austria ([GC], no. 62903/15, §§ 157-60, 15 June 2021), with further references.
• EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 32734/11

  FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  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, 08.07.2021 - 1172/12

  MAMMADOV AND ABBASOV v. AZERBAIJAN and 1 other application
• EGMR, 06.02.2020 - 40394/10

  SAKVARELIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 21.02.2019 - 7088/11

  GABLISHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 43146/15

  NEMTSOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 43955/11

  MAKSIMOVA AND KAPUSTIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 72080/12

  SHAVADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR - 42203/21 (anhängig)

  A.A. v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 24738/19

  GA? I AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 57047/08

  PARJIANI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR - 31568/22 (anhängig)

  HABIBOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR - 5125/24 (anhängig)

  MSHVILDADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 24950/14

  ABDULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN