Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALLAHVERDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-b - Lawful order of a court) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Allahverdiyev v. Azerbaijan

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 49192/08

  It has held that detaining defendants without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, among other cases, Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 53-57, ECHR 2000-III; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 60-63, ECHR 2000-IX; and Gigolashvili v. Georgia, no. 18145/05, §§ 33-36, 8 July 2008).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 49192/08

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 58, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts), and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, § 182, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 49192/08

  Until conviction, he must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-X, and Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 61, 10 March 2009).

 
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 18145/05

  GIGOLASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 49192/08

  It has held that detaining defendants without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, among other cases, Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 53-57, ECHR 2000-III; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 60-63, ECHR 2000-IX; and Gigolashvili v. Georgia, no. 18145/05, §§ 33-36, 8 July 2008).
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 49192/08

  Until conviction, he must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-X, and Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 61, 10 March 2009).
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 43586/04

  ANGELOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 49192/08

  It will, however, depend on the particular circumstances whether the unilateral declaration offers a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI, and Angelov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 43586/04, § 12, 4 November 2010).
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

  CHUMAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 49192/08

  The Court reiterates in this connection that court decisions extending detention without any reasoning are contrary to Article 5 of the Convention (compare Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, § 130, 24 April 2012, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 142, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 49192/08

  The domestic courts must examine all the facts arguing for or against the existence of a genuine requirement of public interest justifying, with due regard to the principle of the presumption of innocence, a departure from the rule of respect for individual liberty and set them out in their decisions on the applications for release (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 35, Series A no. 207).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 49192/08

  It has held that detaining defendants without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, among other cases, Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 53-57, ECHR 2000-III; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 60-63, ECHR 2000-IX; and Gigolashvili v. Georgia, no. 18145/05, §§ 33-36, 8 July 2008).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 49192/08

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also be satisfied that the national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64

  Matznetter ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 72611/14

  TAGIYEVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  As regards the part of the claim for the translation of various documents and the preparation of the expert report, the Court does not consider that the translations and the preparation of the expert report were necessary for the proceedings before it (see Allahverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 49192/08, § 71, 6 March 2014; Sakit Zahidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 51164/07, § 70, 12 November 2015; and Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev v. Azerbaijan, nos. 74288/14 and 64568/16, § 125, 14 October 2021).
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 19842/15

  HAZIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In those cases, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, in that the applicants' detention had not been based on a court decision and had therefore been unlawful within the meaning of that provision (see, among other cases, Farhad Aliyev, cited above, §§ 174-179; Allahverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 49192/08, §§ 45-46, 6 March 2014; and Isayeva v. Azerbaijan, no. 36229/11, §§ 69-70, 25 June 2015).
• EGMR - 53205/17 (anhängig)

  ORUJOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Did the domestic courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicant's continued detention, within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Allahverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 49192/08, §§ 51-63, 6 March 2014, and Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 35432/07, §§ 95-100, 21 February 2019)?.
• EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 1459/14

  SADIGOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  However, the Court reiterates that, under Article 5 § 3, grounds such as the need to implement further investigative measures, or the fact that proceedings have not yet been completed, do not correspond to any of the acceptable reasons for detaining a person pending trial (see Allahverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 49192/08, § 60, 6 March 2014, and Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 35432/07, § 99, 21 February 2019).
• EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 48255/11

  PANAHLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  The relevant decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court concerning the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody and pre-trial detention are described in detail in the Court's judgment in Allahverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 49192/08, §§ 31-32, 6 March 2014).