Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALIYEVA AND ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Aliyeva and Aliyev v. Azerbaijan

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ALIYEVA AND ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

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

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 59895/00

  CALABRO v. ITALY and GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 35587/08

  In the circumstances of the present case, any possible failure on the part of the Ukrainian authorities to respect the provisions of the 1993 Minsk Convention concerning legal assistance, or any other bilateral treaty between the two States, cannot be the subject matter of a case before the Court (see Calabro v. Italy and Germany, (dec.) no. 59895/00, 21 March 2002, and Karalyos and Huber v. Hungary and Greece, no. 75116/01, § 40, 6 April 2004).
• EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 75116/01

  KARALYOS AND HUBER v. HUNGARY AND GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 35587/08

  In the circumstances of the present case, any possible failure on the part of the Ukrainian authorities to respect the provisions of the 1993 Minsk Convention concerning legal assistance, or any other bilateral treaty between the two States, cannot be the subject matter of a case before the Court (see Calabro v. Italy and Germany, (dec.) no. 59895/00, 21 March 2002, and Karalyos and Huber v. Hungary and Greece, no. 75116/01, § 40, 6 April 2004).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 35587/08

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

• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 35587/08

  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).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 35587/08

  Whatever mode is employed, the authorities must act of their own motion once the matter has come to their attention (see, for example, mutatis mutandis, Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, ECHR 2000-VII, § 63).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 35587/08

  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; Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V; and Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, § 62, 15 January 2009).
• EGMR, 15.04.2012 - 29520/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 35587/08

  The Court further notes that it also recently had an opportunity to clarify the above-mentioned criteria, and found that for a "genuine connection" to be established, both criteria must be satisfied: the period of time between the death as the triggering event and the entry into force of the Convention must have been reasonably short, and a major part of the investigation must have been carried out, or ought to have been carried out, after the entry into force (see Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, § 148, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 47916/99

  MENSON contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 35587/08

  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; Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V; and Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, § 62, 15 January 2009).
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 75726/01

  LYUBOV EFIMENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 35587/08

  The period of time between the death as the triggering event and the entry into force of the Convention - ten and a half months - was reasonably short (compare Lyubov Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 75726/01, § 65, 25 November 2010; Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, §§ 45-48, 12 January 2012; Dimovi v. Bulgaria, no. 52744/07, §§ 36-45, 6 November 2012; and Bajic v. Croatia, no. 41108/10, § 62, 13 November 2012), and the entire criminal investigation in Azerbaijan, which has so far lasted more than eleven years, was carried out after the critical date.
• EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 35403/06

  TSINTSABADZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 35587/08

  In all cases, the next of kin of the victim must be involved in the procedure to such an extent as is necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests (see Tsintsabadze v. Georgia, no. 35403/06, § 76, 15 February 2011).
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 52744/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 14.09.2006 - 30651/05

  KHOLODOVY v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 36925/07

  GÜZELYURTLU AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS AND TURKEY

  In the absence of "special features" in a given case (within the meaning of Rantsev, cited above, § 243; for instance, treaty commitments to investigate or to institute criminal proceedings in respect of a death occurring in another State Party as in the case of Aliyeva and Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 35587/08, § 57, 31 July 2014), a State was obliged to investigate a death under Article 2 only if there was such a "jurisdictional link" between the victim and the State.
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30500/11

  MALIK BABAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In all cases, the next of kin of the victim must be involved in the procedure to such an extent as is necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests (see Tsintsabadze v. Georgia, no. 35403/06, § 76, 15 February 2011, and Aliyeva and Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 35587/08, § 70, 31 July 2014).
• EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2169/12

  HOVHANNISYAN v. ARMENIA and 1 other application

  In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicants' involvement in the procedure was not ensured to such an extent as was necessary to safeguard their legitimate interests (see Tsintsabadze v. Georgia, no. 35403/06, § 76, 15 February 2011, and Aliyeva and Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 35587/08, § 70, 31 July 2014).

• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10

  HUSEYNOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  The courts in that case found that Article 449 clearly established the extent of the actions and decisions of prosecuting authorities which could be challenged in court (see Aliyeva and Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 35587/08, §§ 36-38, 31 July 2014).
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 1049/17

  NIKA v. ALBANIA

  The applicants' letter of 2021 (see paragraph 78 above), in which they acknowledged having been kept informed of investigative developments that had occurred prior to 2020, does not suffice to justify the conclusion that they were involved in the procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard their legitimate interests (see Tsintsabadze v. Georgia, no. 35403/06, § 76, 15 February 2011, and Aliyeva and Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 35587/08, § 70, 31 July 2014).
• EGMR, 10.09.2020 - 69460/12

  SHURIYYA ZEYNALOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court deems it necessary to reiterate that this situation deprived the applicant of the opportunity to safeguard his legitimate interests, and prevented any scrutiny of the investigation by the public (see Slimani, cited above, §§ 44-48; Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, § 49, 24 March 2009; Aliyeva and Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 35587/08, § 79, 31 July 2014; and Huseynova, cited above, § 113).
• EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 43564/17

  CAAMANO VALLE v. SPAIN

  At the same time, the Court reiterates that it has authority to ensure that the text of the European Convention on Human Rights is respected (see Aliyeva and Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 35587/08, § 74, 31 July 2014).
• EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 69450/10

  KHABIROV v. RUSSIA

  In all cases, the next of kin of the victim must be involved in the procedure to such an extent as is necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests (see Tsintsabadze v. Georgia, no. 35403/06, § 76, 15 February 2011, and Aliyeva and Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 35587/08, § 70, 31 July 2014).
• EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 8663/08

  [ENG]

  In all cases, the next of kin of the victim must be involved in the procedure to such an extent as is necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests (see Tsintsabadze v. Georgia, no. 35403/06, § 76, 15 February 2011, and Aliyeva and Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 35587/08, § 70, 31 July 2014).
• EGMR, 10.11.2016 - 8937/09

  GASIMOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Furthermore, the overall length of the criminal investigation, which lasted at least eight years and four months, is such that any meaningful investigation can no longer be pursued (see Aliyeva and Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 35587/08, § 78, 31 July 2014).
• EGMR, 17.12.2020 - 16215/15

  TRETIAK v. UKRAINE