Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MURSALIYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-general (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);No violation of Article 34 - Individual ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MURSALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN and 10 other applications

  Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14480/04

  A.E. v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2018 - 66650/13

  However, having regard to its finding in respect of the complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the same facts again by reference to Article 8 (see Riener, cited above, § 134; A. E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, § 54, 31 March 2009; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, § 56, 7 June 2011; and Battista v. Italy, no. 43978/09, § 52, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 6767/04

  PRESCHER v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2018 - 66650/13

  However, having regard to its finding in respect of the complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the same facts again by reference to Article 8 (see Riener, cited above, § 134; A. E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, § 54, 31 March 2009; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, § 56, 7 June 2011; and Battista v. Italy, no. 43978/09, § 52, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 5871/07

  BERKOVICH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2018 - 66650/13

  5871/07 and 9 others, § 75, 27 March 2018).

 
• EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 28975/05

  KHLYUSTOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2018 - 66650/13

  The Court reiterates that Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 guarantees to any person a right to liberty of movement within a given territory and the right to leave that territory, which implies the right to travel to a country of the person's choice to which he or she may be admitted (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 61, ECHR 2001-V; Khlyustov v. Russia, no. 28975/05, § 64, 11 July 2013; and Berkovich and Others, cited above, § 78).
• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  DE TOMMASO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2018 - 66650/13

  The Court agrees with the applicants that those measures amounted to an interference with their right to leave their own country within the meaning of Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4. It must therefore be examined whether the interference was "in accordance with law", pursued one or more of the legitimate aims set out in Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4 and whether it was "necessary in a democratic society" to achieve such an aim (see Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, § 61, 10 February 2011; Stamose v. Bulgaria, no. 29713/05, § 30, ECHR 2012; Kerimli v. Azerbaijan, no. 3967/09, § 45, 16 July 2015; and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 105, 23 February 2017).
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 30943/04

  NALBANTSKI v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2018 - 66650/13

  The Court agrees with the applicants that those measures amounted to an interference with their right to leave their own country within the meaning of Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4. It must therefore be examined whether the interference was "in accordance with law", pursued one or more of the legitimate aims set out in Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4 and whether it was "necessary in a democratic society" to achieve such an aim (see Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, § 61, 10 February 2011; Stamose v. Bulgaria, no. 29713/05, § 30, ECHR 2012; Kerimli v. Azerbaijan, no. 3967/09, § 45, 16 July 2015; and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 105, 23 February 2017).
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 3967/09

  KERIMLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2018 - 66650/13

  The Court agrees with the applicants that those measures amounted to an interference with their right to leave their own country within the meaning of Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4. It must therefore be examined whether the interference was "in accordance with law", pursued one or more of the legitimate aims set out in Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4 and whether it was "necessary in a democratic society" to achieve such an aim (see Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, § 61, 10 February 2011; Stamose v. Bulgaria, no. 29713/05, § 30, ECHR 2012; Kerimli v. Azerbaijan, no. 3967/09, § 45, 16 July 2015; and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 105, 23 February 2017).
• EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 19356/07

  SHIOSHVILI AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2018 - 66650/13

  This finding makes it unnecessary to determine whether the interference pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary in a democratic society (see Sissanis v. Romania, no. 23468/02, § 78, 25 January 2007; Tatishvili v. Russia, no. 1509/02, § 54, ECHR 2007-I; and Shioshvili and Others v. Russia, no. 19356/07, § 61, 20 December 2016).
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2018 - 66650/13

  The Court reiterates that Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 guarantees to any person a right to liberty of movement within a given territory and the right to leave that territory, which implies the right to travel to a country of the person's choice to which he or she may be admitted (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 61, ECHR 2001-V; Khlyustov v. Russia, no. 28975/05, § 64, 11 July 2013; and Berkovich and Others, cited above, § 78).
• EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00

  BARTIK v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2018 - 66650/13

  62775/16 and 43327/16 cannot deprive them of their victim status under the Convention, and that they are still victims within the meaning of the Convention in respect of their complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, § 34, ECHR 2006-XV, and Berkovich and Others v. Russia, nos.

• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 38121/20

  L.B. v. LITHUANIA

  An interference with a person's right to leave any country must be "in accordance with law", pursue one or more of the legitimate aims set out in Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4 and be "necessary in a democratic society" to achieve such an aim (see Mursaliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 66650/13 and 10 others, § 30, 13 December 2018, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 42429/16

  MEMEDOVA AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  66650/13 and 10 others, § 59, 13 December 2018).
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 1395/18

  JALILOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the imposition of travel bans on witnesses in criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that regard (see Mursaliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 66650/13 and 10 others, §§ 29-36 and 44-47, 13 December 2018).

 
• EGMR, 09.11.2023 - 50612/18

  MAHMUDOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Having studied the terms of the Government's unilateral declaration and finding in particular that the amount of compensation proposed does not constitute adequate and sufficient redress for the alleged violations of the applicant's rights under the Convention (compare Mursaliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 66650/13 and 10 others, §§ 57-62, 13 December 2018), the Court considers that the proposed declaration does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue its examination of this application (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 23036/19

  NAMAZOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court has established clear case-law concerning complaints concerning the imposition of travel bans on witnesses in criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that regard (see Mursaliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 66650/13 and 10 others, §§ 29-36 and 44-47, 13 December 2018).
• EGMR, 21.09.2023 - 1158/17

  GANBAROVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 of PROTOCOL No. 4 TO THE CONVENTION 10. The Court refers to the general principles established in its case-law and set out in Mursaliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 66650/13 and 10 others, §§ 29-31, 13 December 2018), which are equally pertinent to the present case.
• EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 26764/12

  ROTARU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Ce contrôle doit porter tant sur la légalité (Mursaliyev et autres c. Azerbaïdjan, nos 66650/13 et 10 autres, § 34, 13 décembre 2018) que sur la proportionnalité de la mesure litigieuse (voir, par exemple, Riener c. Bulgarie, no 46343/99, § 126, 23 mai 2006, Gochev c. Bulgarie, no 34383/03, § 50 in fine, 26 novembre 2009, et Popoviciu c. Roumanie, no 52942/09, §§ 92-93, 1er mars 2016 ; et comparer avec, sur le terrain de l'article 8 de la Convention, Heino c. Finlande, no 56720/09, § 45, 15 février 2011, et DELTA PEKÁRNY a.s. c. République tchèque, no 97/11, § 87, 2 octobre 2014).
• EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 71401/17

  HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court has established clear case-law concerning complaints relating to the imposition of travel bans within the framework of the criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that regard (see Mursaliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 66650/13 and 10 others, §§ 29-36 and 44-47, 13 December 2018).