Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EFENDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Efendiyev v. Azerbaijan

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

  Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Mitangeklagten als Zeugen im Sinne der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 27304/07

  Therefore, the Court will examine the complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) taken together (see, among many other authorities, Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, 23 April 1997, § 49, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III, and Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 37, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  SOMOGYI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 27304/07

  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; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 39481/98

  MILD AND VIRTANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 27304/07

  Even where the evidence of an absent witness has not been sole or decisive, the Court has still found a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) when no good reason has been shown for the failure to have the witness examined (see, for example, in Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238; Mild and Virtanen v. Finland, no. 39481/98 and 40227/98, 26 July 2005; Bonev v. Bulgaria, no. 60018/00, 8 June 2006; and Pello v. Estonia, no. 11423/03, 12 April 2007).

 
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 60018/00

  Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 27304/07

  Even where the evidence of an absent witness has not been sole or decisive, the Court has still found a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) when no good reason has been shown for the failure to have the witness examined (see, for example, in Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238; Mild and Virtanen v. Finland, no. 39481/98 and 40227/98, 26 July 2005; Bonev v. Bulgaria, no. 60018/00, 8 June 2006; and Pello v. Estonia, no. 11423/03, 12 April 2007).
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 11423/03

  PELLO v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 27304/07

  Even where the evidence of an absent witness has not been sole or decisive, the Court has still found a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) when no good reason has been shown for the failure to have the witness examined (see, for example, in Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238; Mild and Virtanen v. Finland, no. 39481/98 and 40227/98, 26 July 2005; Bonev v. Bulgaria, no. 60018/00, 8 June 2006; and Pello v. Estonia, no. 11423/03, 12 April 2007).
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05

  ABBASOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 27304/07

  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; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15435/03

  SHULEPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 27304/07

  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; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 26766/05

  Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Zeugen (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren: …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 27304/07

  In addition, the Court's primary concern under Article 6 § 1 is to evaluate the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 27304/07

  Even where the evidence of an absent witness has not been sole or decisive, the Court has still found a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) when no good reason has been shown for the failure to have the witness examined (see, for example, in Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238; Mild and Virtanen v. Finland, no. 39481/98 and 40227/98, 26 July 2005; Bonev v. Bulgaria, no. 60018/00, 8 June 2006; and Pello v. Estonia, no. 11423/03, 12 April 2007).

• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 19842/15

  HAZIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  As regards the part of the claim concerning the food and visit expenses, the Court does not find any causal link between the damage claimed and the violations found (see Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, § 186, 22 April 2010; Efendiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 27304/07, § 60, 18 December 2014; and Yagublu v. Azerbaijan, no. 31709/13, § 68, 5 November 2015).
• EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 45008/08

  TUTAR c. TURQUIE

  Il s'agit donc de la même date que celle qui met un terme final à la détention préventive visée par l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention (Del Giudice c. Italie (déc.), no 42351/98, 6 juillet 1999, Daktaras c. Lituanie (déc.), no 42095/98, 11 janvier 2000, et Efendiyev c. Azerbaïdjan, no 27304/07, § 53, 18 décembre 2014).
• EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 7459/04

  GÖKBULUT c. TURQUIE

  La Cour constate que la « décision interne définitive ", au sens de sa jurisprudence (voir, entre autres, Efendiyev c. Azerbaïdjan, no 27304/07, § 53, 18 décembre 2014), est celle rendue sur le bien-fondé de l'accusation, fût-ce seulement en premier ressort.
• EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 1459/14

  SADIGOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  As regards the applicant's claim in respect of pecuniary damage, the Court does not find any causal link between the damage claimed and the violation found (see Efendiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 27304/07, § 60, 18 December 2014; Yagublu v. Azerbaijan, no. 31709/13, § 68, 5 November 2015; and Haziyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 19842/15, § 49, 6 December 2018).