Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MUSHEGH SAGHATELYAN v. ARMENIA

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1774/11

  NEMTSOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 23086/08

  The Court also found that by dismissing all evidence in the defendant's favour without justification, the domestic courts had placed an extreme and unattainable burden of proof on the applicant, contrary to the basic requirement that the prosecution has to prove its case and to one of the fundamental principles of criminal law, namely in dubio pro reo (see Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, § 92, 31 July 2014).
• EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 20652/92

  DJAVIT AN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 23086/08

  As such, this right covers both private meetings and meetings in public places, whether static or in the form of a procession; in addition, it can be exercised by individual participants and by the persons organising the gathering (see Djavit An v. Turkey, no. 20652/92, § 56, ECHR 2003-III; Ziliberberg v. Moldova (dec.), no. 61821/00, 4 May 2004; and Kudrevicius and Others, cited above, § 91).
• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09

  AUSTIN ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 23086/08

  39692/09 and 2 others, § 61, ECHR 2012).

 
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 76204/11

  NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 23086/08

  It held that in the dispute over the key facts underlying the charges where the only witnesses for the prosecution were the police officers who had played an active role in the contested events, it was indispensable for the courts to use every reasonable opportunity to check their incriminating statements (see Kasparov and Others, cited above, § 64; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 83, 4 December 2014; and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, § 165, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 74568/12

  Russland verurteilt: 25.000 Euro wegen Festnahme nach Demo

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 23086/08

  It held that in the dispute over the key facts underlying the charges where the only witnesses for the prosecution were the police officers who had played an active role in the contested events, it was indispensable for the courts to use every reasonable opportunity to check their incriminating statements (see Kasparov and Others, cited above, § 64; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 83, 4 December 2014; and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, § 165, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 34320/04

  HAKOBYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 23086/08

  The Court has previously applied this reasoning in the context of Article 11 of the Convention, including in a case against Armenia (see Hakobyan and Others v. Armenia, no. 34320/04, §§ 90-99, 10 April 2012; as well as Nemtsov, cited above, §§ 66-71; Karpyuk and Others, cited above, §§ 194-206; and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos.
• EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 74552/01

  OYA ATAMAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 23086/08

  In particular, where irregular demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (see, among other authorities, Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, §§ 39 and 42, ECHR 2006-XIV, and Kasparov and Others, cited above, § 91).
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 23086/08

  Therefore, even though it is normally for the national courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to call a witness, there might be exceptional circumstances which could prompt the Court to conclude that the failure do so was incompatible with Article 6 (see Bricmont v. Belgium, 7 July 1989, § 89, Series A no. 158; Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 188, 13 July 2006; and Dorokhov v. Russia, no. 66802/01, § 65, 14 February 2008).
• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 67360/11

  HUSEYNLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 23086/08

  67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 87-97, 11 February 2016).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 23086/08

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 40094/05

  VIRABYAN v. ARMENIA

• EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 56896/17

  LAURIJSEN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Turning to the question of whether any violent intentions or actions on the part of the participants, including the applicants, could be inferred from the remaining factors adduced by the Government (see paragraph 43 above), the Court reiterates that in several cases it has recognised that Article 11 offers protection to ostensibly peaceful protesters who have taken part in assemblies which were tarnished by violence on the part of other protesters (see, for example, Karpyuk and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 30582/04 and 32152/04, §§ 207-08 and 211, 6 October 2015; Mushegh Saghatelyan v. Armenia, no. 23086/08, §§ 233-35, 20 September 2018; and Laguna Guzman v. Spain, no. 41462/17, § 35, 6 October 2020; all with further references).
• EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 50423/08

  GHAVALYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court notes that it has already examined a number of cases against Armenia, in which a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention was found in similar circumstances (see Piruzyan v. Armenia, no. 33376/07, §§ 97-100, 26 June 2012; Malkhasyan, cited above, §§ 74-77; Sefilyan, cited above, §§ 88-93; Ara Harutyunyan, cited above, §§ 54-59; Arzumanyan v. Armenia, no. 25935/08, §§, 36-37, 11 January 2018; and Mushegh Saghatelyan v. Armenia, no. 23086/08, §§ 189-92, 20 September 2018).
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 44841/08

  JHANGIRYAN v. ARMENIA

  For other relevant domestic provisions, international and domestic documents see the Statement of Facts in the case of Saghatelyan v. Armenia, no. 23086/08, communicated on 30 November 2010.

 
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 44765/08

  JHANGIRYAN v. ARMENIA

  For relevant domestic provisions, international and domestic documents see the Statement of Facts in the case of Saghatelyan v. Armenia, no. 23086/08, communicated on 30 November 2010.
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 11222/12

  HAKOBYAN v. ARMENIA

  Moreover, no report was filed at the material time by the arresting police officers about any injuries sustained by the applicant during his arrest as required under section 29 of the Police Act (see Mushegh Saghatelyan v. Armenia, no. 23086/08, § 122, 20 September 2018), whereas the criminal case against the applicant for alleged assault on the police was dropped for lack of evidence.
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 54261/13

  DAVTYAN v. ARMENIA

  It is notable that no report was filed at the material time by the arresting police officers about any injuries sustained by the applicant during his arrest as required under section 29 of the Police Act (see Mushegh Saghatelyan v. Armenia, no. 23086/08, § 122, 20 September 2018), whereas the applicant consistently denied that version of events throughout the investigation.
• EGMR, 25.04.2019 - 36469/08

  TER-PETROSYAN v. ARMENIA

  It notes that it has already examined and dismissed a similar claim by the Government, finding that there was not sufficient and convincing evidence to conclude that the organisers and the participants of the assembly at Freedom Square had had violent intentions and that the assembly in question had not been peaceful (see Mushegh Saghatelyan v. Armenia, no. 23086/08, §§ 229-233, 20 September 2018).
• EGMR - 6099/19 (anhängig)

  VERDIOGLU ?žIK v. TURKEY

  En particulier, à la lumière du rapport médical du 17 juin 2013 établi par l'hôpital de Gaziosmanpa?Ÿa (« Gaziosmanpa?Ÿa Taksim Egitim ve Ara?Ÿtirma Hastanesi ") ainsi que des constats établis par la Cour constitutionnelle au paragraphe 65 de sa décision du 19 avril 2018 (« Ba?Ÿvuru Numarasi: 2014/17177, Karar Tarihi: 19/4/2018 ") selon lesquels les participantes à cette action, y compris la requérante, n'avaient pas commis d'actes violents et que le procureur de la République n'avait pas fait de constat concernant le comportement de la requérante lors de cette action, l'enquête menée par le procureur de la République compétent a-t-elle donnée une explication plausible, c'est-à-dire que le traitement dénoncé n'était pas rendu strictement nécessaire par le comportement de la requérante, quel que soit l'impact que cela a eu par ailleurs sur l'intéressée (Bouyid c. Belgique [GC], no 23380/09, § 101, CEDH 2015, Mushegh Saghatelyan c. Arménie, no 23086/08, § 146, 20 septembre 2018, Ghedir et autres c. France, § 123, no 20579/12, 16 juillet 2015, Izgi c. Turquie, no 44861/04, § 39, 15 novembre 2011, et Mete et autres c. Turquie, no 294/08, § 106, 4 octobre 2011), au sens de l'article 3 de la Convention ?.
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 22665/10

  PASHINYAN v. ARMENIA

  A more detailed description of the demonstrations at Freedom Square, including the police intervention breaking up the camp and sealing off the square in the early morning of 1 March 2008; the later gathering of several thousand people in the area of the French Embassy, the Yerevan Mayor's Office and the Myasnikyan monument; the escalation of tensions between the protesters and the law-enforcement authorities in the course of the day and the resulting violence; the declaration of a state of emergency; and the institution of criminal cases against opposition leaders and activists on 1 and 2 March 2008, can be found in Mushegh Saghatelyan v. Armenia, (no. 23086/08, §§ 7-17, 20 September 2018), Myasnik Malkhasyan v. Armenia (no. 49020/08, §§ 5-15, 15 October 2020) and Dareskizb Ltd v. Armenia (no. 61737/08, §§ 5-12, 21 September 2021).