Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NOVRUZ ISMAYILOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 16794/05

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints, and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 68, Reports 1996-IV, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 16794/05

  The Court notes that the period to be taken into consideration for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends on "the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance" (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 110, ECHR 2002-VI, and Labita, cited above, § 147).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 16794/05

  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 - 16794/05

  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 - 16794/05

  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, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 16794/05

  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, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 16794/05

  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 - 16794/05

  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 - 16794/05

  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); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7); the risk that he would commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10); and the risk that he would cause public disorder (see Letellier, cited above, § 51).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 16794/05

  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); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7); the risk that he would commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10); and the risk that he would cause public disorder (see Letellier, cited above, § 51).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

• 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, 09.05.2023 - 25190/18

  DOCEVSKA-BOZHINOVSKA v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  In view of the dramatic impact of deprivation of liberty on the fundamental rights of the person concerned (see Lietzow v. Germany, no. 24479/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I), the Court finds that the proceedings before the appellate court could not remedy the defects in the proceedings in which the detention order was made (see, mutatis mutandis, Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, § 86, 20 February 2014).
• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 31446/09

  TUNCER v. TURKEY

  In order to comply with the rule, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see, among other authorities, Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, § 69, 20 February 2014).

 
• EGMR, 19.10.2023 - 37714/17

  ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Farhad Aliyev, and Zayidov, both cited above, and Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, 20 February 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.
• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 45929/17

  IBISHBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Farhad Aliyev, cited above; Zayidov, cited above; and Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, 20 February 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
• EGMR, 21.09.2023 - 10084/21

  ALIYEV AND BABAYEv. AZERBAIJAN

  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Farhad Aliyev and Zayidov, both cited above, and Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, 20 February 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
• EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 1459/14

  SADIGOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Accordingly, the Court considers that the above-mentioned evidence objectively linked the applicant to the alleged criminal offence and was sufficient to have created a "reasonable suspicion" against him (compare Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, §§ 42-43, 20 February 2014, and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 11948/08, §§ 43-45, 20 February 2014).
• EGMR, 10.02.2022 - 43389/16

  HAJIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Farhad Aliyev, cited above, Zayidov, cited above, and Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, 20 February 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.