Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ELECTION MONITORING CENTRE AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ELECTION MONITORING CENTRE AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 60259/11

  GAFGAZ MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2021 - 64733/09

  Therefore, the Court will proceed to examine those broader issues before making its conclusion on all aspects of the alleged violation of Article 11 of the Convention (see, for a similar approach, Tebieti Mühafize Cemiyyeti and Israfilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 37083/03, § 65, ECHR 2009; Koretskyy and Others v. Ukraine, no. 40269/02, § 49, 3 April 2008; and Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, § 57, 15 October 2015).
• EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 201/17

  MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2021 - 64733/09

  It thus implies that there must be adequate safeguards in domestic law against arbitrary interferences by public authorities (see Magyar Kétfarkú Kutya Párt v. Hungary [GC], no. 201/17, § 93, 20 January 2020, with further references).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2021 - 64733/09

  Unless the interpretation is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable, the Court's role is confined to ascertaining whether the effects of that interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 149, 20 March 2018; Jafarov and Others, cited above, § 69; and Centre for Democracy and the Rule of Law v. Ukraine, no. 10090/16, § 108, 26 March 2020).

 
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2021 - 64733/09

  The law should be accessible to the persons concerned and formulated with sufficient precision as to enable them - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences that a given action may entail (see, among many others, Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I, and Gorzelik and Others, cited above, § 64).
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 37083/03

  TEBIETI MÜHAFIZE CEMIYYETI AND ISRAFILOV c. AZERBAIDJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2021 - 64733/09

  Therefore, the Court will proceed to examine those broader issues before making its conclusion on all aspects of the alleged violation of Article 11 of the Convention (see, for a similar approach, Tebieti Mühafize Cemiyyeti and Israfilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 37083/03, § 65, ECHR 2009; Koretskyy and Others v. Ukraine, no. 40269/02, § 49, 3 April 2008; and Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, § 57, 15 October 2015).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2021 - 64733/09

  However, many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague, and whose interpretation and application are questions of practice (see, among many others, Gorzelik and Others, cited above, §§ 64-65; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 41, ECHR 2007-IV; and Selahattin Demirta?Ÿ, cited above, § 250).
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 35943/10

  VONA v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2021 - 64733/09

  In the Court's view, even assuming that there were factual and legal grounds for finding that the alleged breaches had been committed, those breaches clearly did not concern substantive issues related to the EMC's existence or activities and could only be characterised as alleged shortcomings or breaches of a procedural nature (contrast Vona v. Hungary, no. 35943/10, §§ 56-71, ECHR 2013, where the movement and the association in question were involved in the staging of anti-Roma rallies and paramilitary parades, and MIHR Foundation v. Turkey, no. 10814/07, §§ 41-43, 7 May 2019, where the foundation in question was no longer capable, for lack of financial means, of functioning in conformity with its aims).
• EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 10814/07

  FONDATION MIHR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2021 - 64733/09

  In the Court's view, even assuming that there were factual and legal grounds for finding that the alleged breaches had been committed, those breaches clearly did not concern substantive issues related to the EMC's existence or activities and could only be characterised as alleged shortcomings or breaches of a procedural nature (contrast Vona v. Hungary, no. 35943/10, §§ 56-71, ECHR 2013, where the movement and the association in question were involved in the staging of anti-Roma rallies and paramilitary parades, and MIHR Foundation v. Turkey, no. 10814/07, §§ 41-43, 7 May 2019, where the foundation in question was no longer capable, for lack of financial means, of functioning in conformity with its aims).
• EGMR, 26.03.2020 - 10090/16

  CENTRE FOR DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2021 - 64733/09

  Unless the interpretation is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable, the Court's role is confined to ascertaining whether the effects of that interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 149, 20 March 2018; Jafarov and Others, cited above, § 69; and Centre for Democracy and the Rule of Law v. Ukraine, no. 10090/16, § 108, 26 March 2020).

• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 10299/15

  MARIYA ALEKHINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  Having regard to the manner in which the authorities treated the requests to register the applicants' organisation in the present case, it is open to doubt whether the repeated refusals of registration aimed at ensuring compliance with the law and therefore at "prevention of disorder" or pursued any of the other aims that could justify an interference under Article 11 of the Convention (see Election Monitoring Centre and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 64733/09, § 58, 2 December 2021).