Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 8460/07   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,57103
EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 8460/07 (https://dejure.org/2011,57103)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03.02.2011 - 8460/07 (https://dejure.org/2011,57103)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03. Februar 2011 - 8460/07 (https://dejure.org/2011,57103)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,57103) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (10)

  • EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30500/11

    MALIK BABAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

    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, 26.11.2015 - 24213/08

    BASENKO v. UKRAINE

    However, in several cases concerning Article 6 § 1 of the Convention where it was in dispute whether the applicant had been notified, the Court held, in circumstances similar to the present case, that normally such statements in the hearing records cannot, without more, be viewed as sufficient evidence of notice (see, for example, Pirali Orujov v. Azerbaijan, no. 8460/07, §§ 19 and 41, 3 February 2011; Fyodorov and Fyodorova v. Ukraine, no. 39229/03, § 100, 7 July 2011; and Kolegovy v. Russia, no. 15226/05, § 41, 1 March 2012).
  • EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 49192/08

    ALLAHVERDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

    Thus, having regard to the content of the Government's unilateral declaration, the Court finds that the Government have failed to establish a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (compare Kessler v. Switzerland, no. 10577/04, § 24, 26 July 2007; Hakimi v. Belgium, no. 665/08, § 29, 29 June 2010; and Pirali Orujov v. Azerbaijan, no. 8460/07, § 31, 3 February 2011).
  • EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 46055/06

    TAKTAKISHVILI v. GEORGIA

    In addition, referring to the Court's approach in the case of Pirali Orujov v. Azerbaijan (no. 8460/07, § 30, 3 February 2011), she argued that the Government's unilateral declaration was not sufficient for her full rehabilitation as a decision to strike the application out in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention would not allow her to request a retrial under Articles 310 (e) of the Code on Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 7 above).
  • EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 50098/07

    ROZHIN v. RUSSIA

    Having regard to the content of the Government's unilateral declaration, the Court finds that the Government have failed to establish a sufficient basis for a finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (compare Hakimi v. Belgium, no. 665/08, § 29, 29 June 2010; Kessler v. Switzerland, no. 10577/04, § 24, 26 July 2007; and, most recently, Pirali Orujov v. Azerbaijan, no. 8460/07, §§ 27-32, 3 February 2011 ).
  • EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 17735/06

    CHOPENKO v. UKRAINE

    The appearance of a representative of the prosecution at an appeal hearing not attended by either the defendant or a legal representative on his behalf, has been found to breach the applicant's right to defend himself and to violate the principle of equality of arms inherent in the right to a fair trial (see, for example, Belziuk, cited above, § 38; Sinichkin v. Russia, no. 20508/03, §§ 38-45, 8 April 2010; Pirali Orujov v. Azerbaijan, no. 8460/07, § 44, 3 February 2011; and Nefedov v. Russia, no. 40962/04, § 41-48, 13 March 2012).
  • EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 38767/07

    SARIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

    In these circumstances, the Court finds that the Government have failed to establish a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see, for example, Kessler v. Switzerland, no. 10577/04, § 24, 26 July 2007, and Pirali Orujov v. Azerbaijan, no. 8460/07, § 31, 3 February 2011).
  • EGMR - 66535/13 (anhängig)

    BOYUKKISHIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN and 3 other applications

    Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicants and/or their lawyers duly notified about the hearings before the domestic courts (see Pirali Orujov v. Azerbaijan, no. 8460/07, §§ 40-46, 3 February 2011; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, §§ 36-43, 8 October 2009; Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 28-34, 17 January 2008)?.
  • EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 59927/08

    BATS v. UKRAINE

    The Court notes at the outset that, contrary to many other cases examined by the Court where there was no evidence in the case file that any correspondence had been sent to the applicants by domestic courts (see, for example, Strizhak v. Ukraine, no. 72269/01, § 39, 8 November 2005; Pirali Orujov v. Azerbaijan, no. 8460/07, §§ 19 and 41, 3 February 2011; Fyodorov and Fyodorova v. Ukraine, no. 39229/03, § 100, 7 July 2011; Gankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 2430/06, 1454/08, 11670/10 and 12938/12, § 42, 31 May 2016), in the present case it is not in dispute that the applicant received an envelope by post from the Court of Appeal.
  • EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 33234/08

    GULMAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

    Second, the Court further observes that the problem of applicants not having been properly summoned in Azerbaijan has been addressed on numerous occasions in its judgments (see Abbasov and Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, both cited above; and Pirali Orujov v. Azerbaijan, no. 8460/07, 3 February 2011) and considers that respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and Protocols thereto, does not require an examination of the present application on the merits.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht