Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZAYIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Zayidov v. Azerbaijan

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 11948/08

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 58, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts), and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, § 182, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 11948/08

  Until conviction, he must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-X, and Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 61, 10 March 2009).
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 11948/08

  Until conviction, he must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-X, and Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 61, 10 March 2009).

 
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 11948/08

  Arguments for and against release must not be general and abstract (see Clooth v. Belgium, 12 December 1991, § 44, Series A no. 225).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 11948/08

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also be satisfied that the national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64

  Matznetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 11948/08

  The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for detaining a person before judgment when that person is suspected of having committed an offence: the risk that the accused would fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9); take action to prejudice the administration of justice if released (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7); commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10); or cause public disorder (see Letellier, cited above, § 51).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 11948/08

  The domestic courts must examine all the facts arguing for or against the existence of a genuine requirement of public interest justifying, with due regard to the principle of the presumption of innocence, a departure from the rule of respect for individual liberty and set them out in their decisions on the applications for release (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 35, Series A no. 207).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 11948/08

  The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for detaining a person before judgment when that person is suspected of having committed an offence: the risk that the accused would fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9); take action to prejudice the administration of justice if released (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7); commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10); or cause public disorder (see Letellier, cited above, § 51).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 11948/08

  The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for detaining a person before judgment when that person is suspected of having committed an offence: the risk that the accused would fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9); take action to prejudice the administration of justice if released (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7); commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10); or cause public disorder (see Letellier, cited above, § 51).

• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

  Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

  In this connection, the Court would once again stress that the gravity of the charges cannot by itself serve to justify long periods of detention (see Ramkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 33566/11, § 59, 8 February 2018; Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, § 53, 20 February 2014; and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 11948/08, § 59, 20 February 2014).
• EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 34015/17

  SARDAR BABAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court has repeatedly found violations of Article 5 § 3 in previous Azerbaijani cases where similar shortcomings were noted and analysed in detail (see, among others, Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, §§ 191-94, 9 November 2010; Muradverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16966/06, §§ 87-91, 9 December 2010; and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 11948/08, §§ 64-68, 20 February 2014).
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 4854/10

  HAJIZADE AND ABDULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In these circumstances, the Court considers that, within the meaning of its case-law, the above-mentioned evidence objectively linked the applicants to the alleged criminal offences and was sufficient to have created a "reasonable suspicion" against them (see Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 11948/08, § 45, 20 February 2014, and Rafig Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 45875/06, § 77, 6 December 2011).

 
• EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 5386/10

  ZAYIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  By a presidential pardon given on 17 March 2010 he was released from serving the remainder of his sentence (for more details, see Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 11948/08, §§ 7-34, 20 February 2014).
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 41105/14

  ABILOV AND MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning the complaints relating to the unlawfulness of the applicants' pre-trial detention and the lack of justification for its continued application (see Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, §§ 174-79 and 184-95, 9 November 2010; Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 11948/08, §§ 61-70, 20 February 2014; and Isayeva v. Azerbaijan, no. 36229/11, §§ 67-70 and 83-93, 25 June 2015).
• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 20605/13

  GURBANOV AND MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case, by using a standard formula merely listing the grounds for detention without mentioning the specific facts of the applicants' case, as well as dismissing their request for the replacement of remand in custody by house arrest without duly examining the arguments for release put forward by them, the domestic courts failed to give "relevant" and "sufficient" reasons to justify the applicants' pre-trial detention (compare Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 11948/08, § 62, 20 February 2014).
• EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 629/11

  ARA HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA

  Arguments for and against release must not be general and abstract (see, among other authorities, Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Becciev v. Moldova, no. 9190/03, § 56, 4 October 2005; Piruzyan v. Armenia, no. 33376/07, § 92, 26 June 2012; Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 11948/08, § 57, 20 February 2014; and Mercep v. Croatia, no. 12301/12, § 79, 26 April 2016).
• EGMR, 19.10.2023 - 37714/17

  ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In the leading cases of Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 37138/06, 9 November 2010), Isayeva v. Azerbaijan (no. 36229/11, 25 June 2015) and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan (no. 11948/08, 20 February 2014), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 20755/08

  AZADLIQ AND ZAYIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  By a presidential pardon of 17 March 2010, he was released from serving the remainder of his sentence (for more details, see Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 11948/08, §§ 7-34, 20 February 2014, and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 5386/10, §§ 5 et seq., 24 March 2022).
• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 45929/17

  IBISHBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  In the leading cases of Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, 9 November 2010; Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 11948/08, 20 February 2014; and Isayeva v. Azerbaijan, no. 36229/11, 25 June 2015, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 44286/12

  BADALYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 21.09.2023 - 10084/21

  ALIYEV AND BABAYEv. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 1459/14

  SADIGOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 24849/18

  KHURSHIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 48255/11

  PANAHLI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 17.03.2022 - 77612/11

  ISGANDAROV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 50520/08

  HOVHANNISYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2022 - 43389/16

  HAJIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN