Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LAYIJOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Layijov v. Azerbaijan

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  SOMOGYI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2014 - 22062/07

  In these circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008; and Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009).
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05

  ABBASOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2014 - 22062/07

  In these circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008; and Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009).
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15435/03

  SHULEPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2014 - 22062/07

  In these circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008; and Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2014 - 22062/07

  Ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. Assessment of this minimum level depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 162, Series A no. 25; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2014 - 22062/07

  In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or of law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, § 45, Series A no. 140).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2014 - 22062/07

  Ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. Assessment of this minimum level depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 162, Series A no. 25; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2014 - 22062/07

  The Court reiterates that "[w]here an individual, when taken in police custody, is in good health, but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention" (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 108-11, Series A no. 241-A, and Selmouni, cited above, § 87).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2014 - 22062/07

  The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2014 - 22062/07

  Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, among many other authorities, Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2014 - 22062/07

  Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 134, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

  MURADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

• EGMR, 03.03.2016 - 7215/10

  Zum Begriff des fairen Verfahrens und der Unverletzlichkeit der Wohnung nach Art. …

  Es bestehen folglich keine Zweifel an der Verlässlichkeit oder Genauigkeit der Beweismittel (im Gegensatz dazu Layijov./. Aserbaidschan, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 22062/07, Rdnr. 75, 10. April 2014;… Horvatic./. Kroatien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 36044/09, Rdnr. 84, 17. Oktober 2013 und Lisica, a. a. O., Rdnr. 57).
• EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 32734/11

  FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  Nevertheless, that fact constitutes an element to be taken into consideration by the Court in its assessment of the reliability of the decisive evidence in the present case (compare, mutatis mutandis, Sakit Zahidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 51164/07, § 53, 12 November 2015, and Layijov v. Azerbaijan, no. 22062/07, § 69, 10 April 2014, in which the applicants had been searched only after they had been taken into police custody and had been under the complete control of the police, and where the Court found that the police's failure without good reason to conduct a search immediately following their arrest raised legitimate concerns about the possible "planting" of evidence, in breach of Article 6 of the Convention).
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 55772/15

  MURADVERDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court notes in this connection that the failure to conduct a search immediately following an arrest without good reason raises legitimate concerns about the possible "planting" of evidence, because the applicant is completely under the control of the authorities during that time (see Layijov v. Azerbaijan, no. 22062/07, § 69, 10 April 2014).
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 46505/08

  IGBAL HASANOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In this connection, the Court attaches a particular weight to the medical evidence, such as forensic report, medical record or any other medical finding, confirming the existence of injuries on the applicant's body (see, among many other authorities, Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, § 61, 11 January 2007; Tahirova v. Azerbaijan, no. 47137/07, § 40, 3 October 2013; and Layijov v. Azerbaijan, no. 22062/07, § 44, 10 April 2014).
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 6383/15

  GULIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In particular, the applicant did not complain that his conviction had been based on planted evidence (contrast Layijov v. Azerbaijan, no. 22062/07, § 57, 10 April 2014, and Sakit Zahidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 51164/07, § 42, 12 November 2015).