Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ISAYEVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ISAYEVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2015 - 36229/11

  The Court reiterates that, when determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration 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, or, possibly, when the applicant is released from custody pending criminal proceedings against him (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 110, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2015 - 36229/11

  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, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2015 - 36229/11

  The Court reiterates that, when determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration 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, or, possibly, when the applicant is released from custody pending criminal proceedings against him (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 110, ECHR 2002-VI).

 
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2015 - 36229/11

  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, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2015 - 36229/11

  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, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2015 - 36229/11

  The Court observes at the outset that in various cases in which an applicant has died in the course of the Convention proceedings, including cases raising length of pre-trial detention complaints, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close family members expressing their wish to pursue the application (see, among other authorities, Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX; Pisarkiewicz v. Poland, no. 18967/02, §§ 30-33, 22 January 2008; and Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, §§ 27-30, 8 April 2014).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2015 - 36229/11

  It has held that detaining defendants without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, among other authorities, Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 53-57, ECHR 2000-III; Jecius, cited above, §§ 60-63; and Gigolashvili v. Georgia, no. 18145/05, §§ 33-36, 8 July 2008).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2015 - 36229/11

  The domestic courts must examine all the arguments for and 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 must set them out in their decisions on applications for release (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 35, Series A no. 207).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2015 - 36229/11

  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, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2015 - 36229/11

  Arguments for and against release must not be general or abstract (see Clooth v. Belgium, 12 December 1991, § 44, Series A no. 225).
• EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 73359/10

  ERGEZEN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 18145/05

  GIGOLASHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 31036/02

  TODEV c. BULGARIE

• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 4854/10

  HAJIZADE AND ABDULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In the leading cases of Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 37138/06, 9 November 2010) and Isayeva v. Azerbaijan (no. 36229/11, 25 June 2015), the Court found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 20605/13

  GURBANOV AND MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION 31. In the leading cases of Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 37138/06, §§ 184-95, 9 November 2010) and Isayeva v. Azerbaijan (no. 36229/11, §§ 83-93, 25 June 2015), the Court found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 19842/15

  HAZIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In those cases, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, in that the applicants' detention had not been based on a court decision and had therefore been unlawful within the meaning of that provision (see, among other cases, Farhad Aliyev, cited above, §§ 174-179; Allahverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 49192/08, §§ 45-46, 6 March 2014; and Isayeva v. Azerbaijan, no. 36229/11, §§ 69-70, 25 June 2015).

 
• 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, 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, 18.02.2021 - 62490/09

  GANIYEVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  However, for reasons of convenience, the text of this judgment will continue to refer to Mr Mammadkhanov and Mr Hasanov as "the applicants", even though Ms Mammadkhanova and Mr Hasanli are today to be regarded as having the status of applicant before the Court (see Gulub Atanasov v. Bulgaria, no. 73281/01, § 42, 6 November 2008; Isayeva v. Azerbaijan, no. 36229/11, § 62, 25 June 2015; and Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 35432/07, § 80, 21 February 2019).
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 13274/08

  TAGIYEV AND HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  However, for reasons of convenience, the text of this judgment will continue to refer to Mr Rafig Tagiyev as "the first applicant", even though only Ms Maila Tagiyeva is today to be regarded as having the status of first applicant before the Court (see Gulub Atanasov v. Bulgaria, no. 73281/01, § 42, 6 November 2008, and Isayeva v. Azerbaijan, no. 36229/11, § 62, 25 June 2015).
• 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, 28.09.2023 - 12528/21

  JABBAROV AND ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the lack of justification for pre-trial detention (see, for example, Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, 9 November 2010, and Isayeva v. Azerbaijan, no. 36229/11, 25 June 2015).
• EGMR, 21.09.2023 - 10084/21

  ALIYEV AND BABAYEv. 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, 19.05.2022 - 24849/18

  KHURSHIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 21.02.2019 - 35432/07

  MAMMADOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 31.08.2023 - 19252/22

  VALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 08.07.2021 - 52584/09

  HASANOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 30795/12

  VASCENKOVS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2022 - 43389/16

  HAJIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN