Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HASANALI ALIYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ALIYEVLER v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 42858/11

  Having regard to the conclusion reached above under Article 8 of the Convention (see paragraphs 27-50 above) and the parties' submissions, the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of these complaints (compare Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 58717/10

  NASIROV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 42858/11

  It therefore rejects the third applicant's complaint as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention (compare Nasirov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 58717/10, § 75, 20 February 2020).
• EGMR, 18.11.2021 - 9437/12

  AHMADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 42858/11

  Where relevant arguments concerning the proportionality of the interference have been raised by the applicants, the domestic courts should examine them in detail and provide adequate reasons (see, among other authorities, Lushkin and Others v. Russia, nos. 29775/14 and 29967/14, § 45, 15 December 2020, and Ahmadova v. Azerbaijan, no. 9437/12, § 46, 18 November 2021, with references therein).

 
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 30856/03

  KRYVITSKA AND KRYVITSKYY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 42858/11

  At no stage of the proceedings did the courts consider whether the applicants would be rendered homeless if evicted, as claimed by them (compare Kryvitska and Kryvitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 30856/03, § 50, 2 December 2010).
• EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 17382/04

  BOYKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 42858/11

  In these circumstances, the Court does not find it established that the third applicant retained sufficient and continuous links with the flat in question for it to be considered his home (compare Boyko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 17382/04, 23 October 2007).
• EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 43176/13

  CRAVCISIN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 42858/11

  The Court notes that the applicants were tenants in the flat in question and therefore considers that their claim for its value is not supported by any convincing evidence (see Prokopovich, cited above, § 49; see also, for illustration purposes, Cravcisin v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [Committee], no. 43176/13, § 51, 28 September 2021).
• EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 17365/14

  SADOVYAK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 42858/11

  The Court therefore finds that the approach taken by the domestic courts amounts to a failure by them to assess the proportionality of the applicants' eviction (see, mutatis mutandis, Yordanova and Others, cited above, §§ 122-23, and Sadovyak v. Ukraine, no. 17365/14, § 33, 17 May 2018).
• EGMR, 15.12.2020 - 29775/14

  LUSHKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 42858/11

  Where relevant arguments concerning the proportionality of the interference have been raised by the applicants, the domestic courts should examine them in detail and provide adequate reasons (see, among other authorities, Lushkin and Others v. Russia, nos. 29775/14 and 29967/14, § 45, 15 December 2020, and Ahmadova v. Azerbaijan, no. 9437/12, § 46, 18 November 2021, with references therein).
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 19841/06

  BAGDONAVICIUS ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 42858/11

  In particular, the Court has previously found that the sole fact of being registered at a different address was not sufficient to conclude that the person had established his or her home there (compare Bagdonavicius and Others v. Russia, no. 19841/06, § 89, 11 October 2016, and Yevgeniy Zakharov v. Russia, no. 66610/10, § 32, 14 March 2017).
• EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 57986/00

  TUREK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 42858/11

  While in principle it is not the Court's role to replace the national courts in their assessment of evidence (see, among other authorities, Turek v. Slovakia, no. 57986/00, § 114, ECHR 2006-II (extracts)), for purposes of determining whether the flat from which the applicants were evicted was their "home" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, it must examine the relevant facts, including the manner in which the domestic courts came to their conclusions.
• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 1503/02

  KHAMZAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 60010/08

  SAGAN c. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 16.05.2019 - 66554/14

  HALABI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 38798/07

  GULMAMMADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 66610/10

  YEVGENIY ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 27427/02

  LAZARENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 45320/99

  MCKAY-KOPECKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 11808/15

  RASTORGUYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 11.04.2023 - 30782/16

  SIMONOVA v. BULGARIA

  The Government did not suggest, and there is no evidence, that the applicant had a home elsewhere (compare Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 46, Series A no. 109; Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-XI (extracts); and Hasanali Aliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 42858/11, § 35, 9 June 2022, and contrast Kaminskas v. Lithuania, no. 44817/18, § 43, 4 August 2020).