Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 45875/06   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2011,55201
EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 45875/06 (https://dejure.org/2011,55201)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06.12.2011 - 45875/06 (https://dejure.org/2011,55201)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. Dezember 2011 - 45875/06 (https://dejure.org/2011,55201)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55201) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    RAFIG ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Proto... koll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Remainder inadmisible Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges




Kontextvorschau:





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

Wird zitiert von ... (19)  

  • EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 39483/05

    LISEYTSEVA AND MASLOV v. RUSSIA

    However, Ms Liseytseva has the opportunity to lodge new applications in respect of any other complaints relating to the subsequent events (see Rafig Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 45875/06, § 70, 6 December 2011).
  • EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 38359/13

    DZINIC v. CROATIA

    The Court also finds it important to note that the seizure of the applicant's property was applied as a provisional measure aimed at securing enforcement of a possible confiscation order imposed at the outcome of the criminal proceedings in relation to the obtained proceeds of crime (see, for example, Rafig Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 45875/06, § 118, 6 December 2011).
  • EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 43165/10

    ERMAKOV v. RUSSIA

    By not taking into account the applicant's arguments against his continued detention, the appeal court failed to carry out a judicial review of the scope and nature required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Nikolova [GC], cited above; see also Rafig Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 45875/06, § 109, 6 December 2011).
  • EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 67696/11

    ADEM SERKAN GÜNDOGDU c. TURQUIE

    Néanmoins, un État qui se dote d'un tel système doit en principe accorder aux détenus les mêmes garanties en appel qu'en première instance (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Toth c. Autriche, 12 décembre 1991, § 84, série A no 224, Navarra c. France, 23 novembre 1993, § 28, série A no 273-B, Grauzinis c. Lituanie, no 37975/97, § 32, 10 octobre 2000, Svipsta c. Lettonie, no 66820/01, § 129, d), CEDH 2006-III (extraits), Fodale c. Italie, no 70148/01, § 39, CEDH 2006-VII, Bagriyanik c. Turquie, no 43256/04, § 47, 5 juin 2007, Samoila et Cionca c. Roumanie, no 33065/03, §§ 58 et 73, 4 mars 2008, Lapusan c. Roumanie, no 29723/03, § 53, 3 juin 2008, Allen c. Royaume-Uni, no 18837/06, § 39, 30 mars 2010, Farhad Aliyev, précité, § 204, et Rafig Aliyev c. Azerbaïdjan, no 45875/06, § 105, 6 décembre 2011).
  • EGMR, 25.06.2015 - 36229/11

    ISAYEVA v. AZERBAIJAN

    The Court also notes that when extending the applicant's detention the courts repeatedly used the same stereotyped formula; their reasoning did not evolve with the passage of time to reflect the developing situation or to ascertain whether these grounds remained valid at the later stages of the proceedings (see Farhad Aliyev, cited above, § 191, and Rafig Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 45875/06, § 92, 6 December 2011).
  • EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 49192/08

    ALLAHVERDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

    The Court also notes that the courts when extending the applicant's detention repeatedly used the same stereotyped formula and their reasoning did not evolve with the passage of time to reflect the developing situation or verify whether these grounds remained valid at the later stages of the proceedings (see Farhad Aliyev, cited above, § 191, and Rafig Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 45875/06, § 92, 6 December 2011).
  • EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 16031/10

    CARACET c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

    La Cour rappelle avoir déjà estimé que la prorogation «collective» de la détention provisoire est en soi incompatible avec les garanties offertes par l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention, dans la mesure où une telle pratique ne prend pas en compte les circonstances propres à chaque personne détenue (Khoudoyorov c. Russie, no 6847/02, § 186, CEDH 2005-X (extraits), et Rafig Aliyev c. Azerbaïdjan, no 45875/06, § 94, 6 décembre 2011).
  • EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 29957/14

    M.S.A. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Accordingly, the Court considers that the Article 5 complaint lodged by the applicant later in the proceedings does not constitute a mere elaboration on his original complaints to the Court, and therefore it is not appropriate to deal with this newly raised matter in the present case (see Rafig Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 45875/06, §§ 69-70, 6 December 2011, with further references).
  • EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 19440/10

    MANISCALCO v. ITALY

    In so far as the applicant complained about the domestic court's assessment in relation to the requirements for issuing an order, the Court reiterates that its power to review compliance with domestic law is limited, as it is in the first place for the national authorities to interpret and apply that law (see Rafig Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 45875/06, § 125, 6 December 2011).
  • EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 40573/08

    NOVOKRESHCHIN v. RUSSIA

    Similarly, in cases in which the applicants were detained at the moment of communication but were convicted prior to delivery of the Court's judgment, the period taken into consideration spanned until the date of conviction (see, among others, Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, §§ 4 and 102, 10 January 2012; Rafig Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 45875/06, §§ 4 and 89, 6 December 2011; Tsarenko v. Russia, no. 5235/09, §§ 3 and 68, 3 March 2011; Pelevin v. Russia, no. 38726/05, §§ 3 and 58, 10 February 2011; Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, §§ 4 and 74, 6 December 2007, and Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 4 and 38, 2 March 2006).
  • EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 35254/04

    TITOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 01.08.2013 - 47721/10

    ANTONYUK c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 27803/16

    PIRAS v. SAN MARINO

  • EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 28523/03

    ADEMOVIC v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 40314/16

    A.A. v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.02.2018 - 50760/09

    HRISTOSKOV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 475/08

    EILDERS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 38372/13

    ALIVORYAN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 12.09.2017 - 36867/14

    GROBENSKI v. CROATIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht