Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SARGSYAN c. AZERBAÏDJAN

  Art. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 19, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Exception préliminaire rejetée (Article 35-1 - Epuisement des voies de recours internes) Exception préliminaire rejetée (Article 35-3 - Situation continue) Exception préliminaire jointe au fond et rejetée (Article 34 - Victime) Partiellement irrecevable Violation ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SARGSYAN v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 19, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Continuing situation) Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim) Remainder inadmissible Violation of ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SARGSYAN v. AZERBAIJAN - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3-a - Continuing situation);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• juraforum.de (Kurzinformation)

  Rechte vertriebener armenischer Kurden gestärkt

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.12.2011 - 40167/06
• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 40167/06
• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 40167/06

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (27)

• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 13216/05

  CHIRAGOV ET AUTRES c. ARMÉNIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 40167/06

  By way of example the Government mentioned that the decision of the Lachin District Soviet of People's Deputies of 29 January 1974 submitted by one of the applicants in the case of Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC] (dec.), (no. 13216/05, 14 December 2011) constituted such primary evidence.

  See my separate opinion appended to Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05.

• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 40167/06

  Even in exceptional circumstances, when a State is prevented from exercising authority over part of its territory, due to military occupation by the armed forces of another State, acts of war or rebellion or the installation of a separatist regime within its territory, it does not cease to have jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention (Ilasçu and Others, cited above, § 333; see also Catan and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, § 109, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).

  43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 109 and 111, ECHR 2012.

• EGMR, 04.02.2014 - 33647/04

  ORUK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 40167/06

  The Court accepts that refusing civilians, including the applicant, access to Gulistan is justified by safety considerations, in particular restricting access to a mined area and protecting civilians against the dangers existing in such an area (see, mutatis mutandis, Oruk v. Turkey, no. 33647/04, §§ 58-67, 4 February 2014 relating to the State's obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to take appropriate measures to protect civilians living near a military firing zone against dangers emanating from unexploded ammunition).

  The majority find that the respondent Government's conduct was, and still is, justified, extending the case-law of Oruk v. Turkey (no. 33647/04, 4 February 2014) to the present case (see paragraph 233 of the judgment).

 
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 40167/06

  That may be as a result of military occupation by the armed forces of another State which effectively controls the territory concerned (see Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), judgment of 23 March 1995, Series A no. 310, and Cyprus v. Turkey, §§ 76-80, cited above, and also cited in the above-mentioned Bankovic and Others decision, §§ 70-71), acts of war or rebellion, or the acts of a foreign State supporting the installation of a separatist State within the territory of the State concerned.

  In addressing this question the Court must bear in mind the special character of the Convention as a constitutional instrument of European public order (ordre public) for the protection of individual human beings and its role, as set out in Article 19 of the Convention "to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties" (see, Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, §§ 75 and 93, Series A no. 310; Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, § 141, ECHR 2011).

• EGMR, 12.12.2001 - 52207/99

  V. und B. B., Ž. S., M. S., D. J. und D. S. gegen Belgien, Dänemark, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 40167/06

  The Court refers to its case-law to the effect that the concept of "jurisdiction" for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention must be considered to reflect the term's meaning in public international law (see Gentilhomme and Others v. France, nos. 48205/99, 48207/99 and 48209/99, § 20, judgment of 14 May 2002; Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, §§ 59-61, ECHR 2001-XII; and Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 137, ECHR 2004-II).

  As the Court noted in the case of Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) ([GC], no. 52207/99, ECHR 2001-XII), from the standpoint of public international law, the words "within their jurisdiction" in Article 1 of the Convention must be understood to mean that a State's jurisdictional competence is primarily territorial, but also that jurisdiction is presumed to be exercised normally throughout the State's territory.

• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 40167/06

  The undertakings given by a Contracting State under Article 1 of the Convention include, in addition to the duty to refrain from interfering with the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms guaranteed, positive obligations to take appropriate steps to ensure respect for those rights and freedoms within its territory (see, among other authorities, Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 73, ECHR 2001-V).

  The undertakings given by a Contracting State under Article 1 of the Convention include, in addition to a duty to refrain from interfering with the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms guaranteed, positive obligations to take appropriate steps to ensure respect for those rights and freedoms within its territory (see Z. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC] no. 29392/95, § 73, ECHR 2001-V).

• EGMR, 12.01.2006 - 18888/02

  IÇYER c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 40167/06

  Other examples of remedies which the Court had found effective in somewhat comparable situations, related to the eviction of villagers in south-east Turkey (see, Içyer v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18888/02, ECHR 2006-I).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 40167/06

  This interpretation results from the need to avoid fragmentation of international law, since the "internal rules" of the Court (the Convention and its protocols) must be applied coherently with "external rules" (see on this topic my separate opinion appended to Valentin Campeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

  GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 40167/06

  Whether or not a particular habitation constitutes a "home" which attracts the protection of Article 8 § 1 will depend on the factual circumstances, namely the existence of sufficient and continuous links with a specific place (see, for instance, Prokopovich, cited above, § 36; Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 46, Series A no. 109).
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 50514/06

  PARASTAYEV v. RUSSIA AND GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 40167/06

  see Parastayev v. Russia and Georgia (dec.), no. 50514/06, 13 December 2011.
• EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 42639/04

  JONES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 57952/00

  ELSANOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 18163/04

  SOFI v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 17170/04

  KERIMOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 64320/01
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
• EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 45133/98
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  IVANTOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 11209/09

  AZEMI v. SERBIA
• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 36150/04

  DAMAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 38450/05

  SABANCHIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 45267/06

  STEPHENS v. CYPRUS, TURKEY AND THE UNITED NATIONS
• EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 48205/99

  GENTILHOMME, SCHAFF-BENHADJI ET ZEROUKI c. FRANCE
• EKMR, 02.05.1978 - 7597/76

  BERTRAND RUSSELL PEACE FOUNDATION Ltd. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 7334/13

  MURSIC c. CROATIE

  [17] The point was already made in my opinions in Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc., cited above, § 71, Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, ECHR 2015, footnote 23, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, ECHR 2014, footnote 14.
• EGMR, 17.09.2014 - 10865/09

  MOCANU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  An applicant has to become active once it is clear that no effective investigation will be provided, in other words once it becomes apparent that the respondent State will not fulfil its obligation under the Convention (see Chiragov and Others v. Armenia (dec.) [GC], no. 13216/05, § 136, 14 December 2011, and Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan (dec.) [GC], no. 40167/06, § 135, 14 December 2011, both referring to Varnava and Others, cited above, § 161).

  An applicant has to become active once it is clear that no effective investigation will be provided, in other words, once it becomes apparent that the respondent State will not fulfil its obligation under the Convention (see Chiragov and Others v. Armenia (dec.) [GC], no. 13216/05, § 136, 14 December 2011, and Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan (dec.) [GC], no. 40167/06, § 135, 14 December 2011, both referring to Varnava and Others, cited by the Court, § 161).

• EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 8138/16

  Bulgarien, minderjährig, Haftbedingungen, Rechtswegerschöpfung, Schadensersatz, …

  Indeed, the Court has already relied on video evidence, not only in other contexts (see, for example, Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, §§ 10, 91 and 176, ECHR 2000-VIII; Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, §§ 9, 139 and 185, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, §§ 11, 56, 61, 70 and 133, ECHR 2015), but also specifically with a view to establishing the conditions of detention of minor migrants (see Mahmundi and Others v. Greece, no. 14902/10, §§ 60 and 64, 31 July 2012).

 
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 09.09.2021 - C-213/19

  Kommission/ Vereinigtes Königreich (Lutte contre la fraude à la sous-évaluation) …

  Demzufolge sind sie im Lichte des in der ersten Regel enthaltenen allgemeinen Grundsatzes auszulegen (vgl. EGMR, 21. Februar 1986, James u. a./Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:1986:0221JUD000879379, § 37, und EGMR, 16. Juni 2015, Sargsyan/Aserbaidschan, CE:ECHR:2015:0616JUD004016706, § 217).
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  FÁBIÁN c. HONGRIE

  The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (see, among many other authorities, Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, § 217, ECHR 2015, and James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 37, Series A no. 98).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13

  BÉLÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY

  The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (see, among many other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 37, Series A no. 98; and Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, § 217, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 30859/10

  SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  The Court has, for example, imposed a duty of diligence and initiative on applicants wishing to complain about the continuing failure of the State to comply with its obligations in the context of ongoing disappearances or the right to property or home (see, for example, Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 et seq., §§ 159-172, ECHR 2009, and Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC] (dec.), no. 40167/06, §§ 124-148, 14 December 2011).
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 50811/10

  BARCZA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (see, among many other authorities, Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 98, ECHR 2000-I, and Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, § 217, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 14594/07

  BERDZENISHVILI AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, the Court finds that the applicants have not made a prima facie case and that the information in the Court's possession does not suffice to establish that the applicants" son had been detained on 9 October 2006 or that the applicants had to leave behind their car (see, mutatis mutandis, Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, § 183, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 01.12.2016 - 59097/09

  BOTOMEI AND S.C. BARTOLO PROD COM S.R.L. v. ROMANIA

  The Court has, for example, imposed a duty of diligence and initiative on applicants wishing to complain about the continuing failure of the State to comply with its obligations in the context of ongoing disappearances or the right to property or home (see, for example, Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 et seq., §§ 159-172, ECHR 2009, and Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC] (dec.), no. 40167/06, §§ 124-148, 14 December 2011).
• EGMR, 05.05.2015 - 35279/10

  MELNICHUK AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA