Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ISMAYILOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 11 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 4439/04

  Such interference will not be justified under the terms of Article 11 of the Convention unless it was "prescribed by law", pursued one or more of the legitimate aims set out in paragraph 2 of that Article and was "necessary in a democratic society" for the achievement of that aim or aims (see, for example, Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 104, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 4439/04

  The Court reiterates that the issue whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally determined by reference to the date when the application was lodged with the Court (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)) although, depending on the circumstances of the case, the Court may accept that the last stage of available remedies may be reached after the lodging of the application but before the Court is called upon to pronounce itself on admissibility (see, for example, Ringeisen v. Austria, judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 38, § 91; Ramazanova and Others, cited above, § 42; and Ivanov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 34070/03, 15 February 2007).
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 4439/04

  This rule is also subject to other exceptions which may be justified by the specific circumstances of each case, for example when a new remedy, specifically designed to address a certain general problem, is introduced after the lodging of a particular individual application with the Court (see, for example, Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII; see also, among many other cases, Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).

 
• EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01

  NOGOLICA c. CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 4439/04

  This rule is also subject to other exceptions which may be justified by the specific circumstances of each case, for example when a new remedy, specifically designed to address a certain general problem, is introduced after the lodging of a particular individual application with the Court (see, for example, Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII; see also, among many other cases, Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 34070/03

  IVANOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 4439/04

  The Court reiterates that the issue whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally determined by reference to the date when the application was lodged with the Court (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)) although, depending on the circumstances of the case, the Court may accept that the last stage of available remedies may be reached after the lodging of the application but before the Court is called upon to pronounce itself on admissibility (see, for example, Ringeisen v. Austria, judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 38, § 91; Ramazanova and Others, cited above, § 42; and Ivanov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 34070/03, 15 February 2007).
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 4439/04

  The Court reiterates that the issue whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally determined by reference to the date when the application was lodged with the Court (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)) although, depending on the circumstances of the case, the Court may accept that the last stage of available remedies may be reached after the lodging of the application but before the Court is called upon to pronounce itself on admissibility (see, for example, Ringeisen v. Austria, judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 38, § 91; Ramazanova and Others, cited above, § 42; and Ivanov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 34070/03, 15 February 2007).

• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 10755/13

  UZUN c. TURQUIE

  Dans l'affaire Ismayilov c. Azerbaïdjan (no 4439/04, 17 janvier 2008), dans laquelle elle avait été appelée à examiner la nécessité pour le requérant d'introduire un recours devant la Cour constitutionnelle, la Cour a écarté l'exception du gouvernement défendeur au motif que le recours prévu par la Constitution n'avait pas été concrètement mis en place pendant environ un an et demi, période pendant laquelle la Cour constitutionnelle avait refusé d'examiner les recours pour absence de règles procédurales.
• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 42722/02

  STOICA v. ROMANIA

  The Court has accepted that this was the case when at the national level a new law, specifically designed to provide direct redress to violations of fundamental procedural rights, was introduced with retroactive effect and put thus an end to a structural problem that existed in the national legal system before its adoption (see Içyer v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18888/02, §§ 83-84, ECHR 2006-I; Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 40-41, ECHR 2005-V; and mutatis mutandis Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 4439/04, § 38, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 4792/03

  PETREA v. ROMANIA

  The Court has accepted that this was the case when at the national level a new law, specifically designed to provide direct redress for violations of fundamental procedural rights, was introduced with retroactive effect and thus put an end to a structural problem that existed in the national legal system before its adoption (see Içyer v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18888/02, §§ 83-84, ECHR 2006-I; Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 40-41, ECHR 2005-V and, mutatis mutandis, Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 4439/04, § 38, 17 January 2008).