Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NAMAT ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of P1-3 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 18705/06

  Furthermore, the object and purpose of the Convention, which is an instrument for the protection of human rights, requires its provisions to be interpreted and applied in such a way as to make their stipulations not theoretical or illusory but practical and effective (see, among many other authorities, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 33, Reports 1998-I; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 100, ECHR 1999-III; and Lykourezos v. Greece, no. 33554/03, § 56, ECHR 2006-VIII).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 51501/99

  CHEREPKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 18705/06

  The dispute in issue therefore concerned the applicant's political rights and did not have any bearing on his "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Pierre-Bloch v. France, 21 October 1997, § 50, Reports 1997-VI; Cherepkov v. Russia (dec.), no. 51501/99, ECHR 2000-I; Ždanoka v. Latvia (dec.), no. 58278/00, 6 March 2003; and Mutalibov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 31799/03, 19 February 2004).
• EGMR, 19.02.2004 - 31799/03

  MUTALIBOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 18705/06

  The dispute in issue therefore concerned the applicant's political rights and did not have any bearing on his "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Pierre-Bloch v. France, 21 October 1997, § 50, Reports 1997-VI; Cherepkov v. Russia (dec.), no. 51501/99, ECHR 2000-I; Ždanoka v. Latvia (dec.), no. 58278/00, 6 March 2003; and Mutalibov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 31799/03, 19 February 2004).

 
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 33554/03

  LYKOUREZOS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 18705/06

  Furthermore, the object and purpose of the Convention, which is an instrument for the protection of human rights, requires its provisions to be interpreted and applied in such a way as to make their stipulations not theoretical or illusory but practical and effective (see, among many other authorities, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 33, Reports 1998-I; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 100, ECHR 1999-III; and Lykourezos v. Greece, no. 33554/03, § 56, ECHR 2006-VIII).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 18705/06

  However, the Court has established that it guarantees individual rights, including the right to vote and to stand for election (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, §§ 46-51, Series A no. 113).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 18705/06

  There is room for "implied limitations" and Contracting States have a wide margin of appreciation in the sphere of elections (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, § 52; Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 63, ECHR 1999-I; and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 201, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 24159/22

  GU?MUNDUR GUNNARSSON AND MAGN?S DAV?? NOR?DAHL v. ICELAND

  Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 contains certain positive obligations of a procedural character, in particular requiring the existence of a domestic system for the effective examination of individual complaints and appeals in matters concerning electoral rights (see Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, §§ 81 et seq., 8 April 2010, and Davydov and Others v. Russia, no. 75947/11, § 274, 30 May 2017).
• EGMR, 21.03.2024 - 36497/20

  SADIGLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court has established clear case-law concerning very similar complaints against Azerbaijan related to violations of the right to stand as a candidate in elections (see Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, 8 April 2010, and Gahramanli and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 36503/11, 8 October 2015).
• EGMR, 11.07.2019 - 28508/11

  ABDALOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  A more detailed summary of the system of electoral commissions, their composition and decision-making procedures, as well as the procedure for examination of election-related appeals, is provided in Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 18705/06, §§ 31-44, 8 April 2010).

  The Court has to satisfy itself that the conditions in which the applicants" individual electoral rights were exercised did not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness (see Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, § 75, 8 April 2010; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 3) [GC], no. 126/05, § 84, 22 May 2012; and Riza and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.

 
• EGMR, 21.03.2024 - 38258/20

  MAMMADOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning very similar complaints against Azerbaijan related to violations of the right to stand as a candidate in elections (see Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, 8 April 2010, and Gahramanli and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 36503/11, 8 October 2015).
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  Russland verurteilt: Recht auf freie Wahl verletzt

  In the latter case, the Court has limited its examination to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, §§ 57 and 81, 8 April 2010; Kerimova v. Azerbaijan, no. 20799/06, §§ 31-32, 30 September 2010, and Riza and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 48555/10 and 48377/10, §§ 94-95, 13 October 2015).
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 48555/10

  RIZA ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  Dans le contexte particulier des litiges électoraux, elle n'est pas appelée à déterminer si les irrégularités du processus électoral alléguées par les parties représentent des violations de la législation interne pertinente (Namat Aliyev c. Azerbaïdjan, no 18705/06, § 77, 8 avril 2010).
• EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 14737/08

  USPASKICH v. LITHUANIA

  The general principles regarding Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention have been set out in Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 18705/06, §§ 70-73, 8 April 2010).
• EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 17313/13

  BILOTSERKIVSKA v. UKRAINE

  The administrative courts' approach to the matter was equally formalistic (compare Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, § 85, 8 April 2010).
• EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 20799/06

  KERIMOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Although originally stated in connection with the conditions on eligibility to stand for election, the principle requiring prevention of arbitrariness is equally relevant in other situations where the effectiveness of individual electoral rights is at stake (see Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, § 72, 8 April 2010), including the manner of review of the outcome of elections and invalidation of election results (see Kovach v. Ukraine, no. 39424/02, § 55 et seq., ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 31953/11

  TAHIROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  A more detailed summary of the system of electoral commissions, their composition and decision-making procedures, as well as the procedure for examination of election-related appeals, is provided in Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 18705/06, §§ 31-44, 8 April 2010).
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 14507/07

  OCCHETTO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 36702/11

  BEHBUDOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 18475/06

  KERIMLI AND ALIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 4508/06

  ORUJOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 26287/06

  SALIMOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN