Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ORUJOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Violation of P1-3 (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Orujov v. Azerbaijan

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 4508/06

  Furthermore, the object and purpose of the Convention, which is an instrument for the protection of human rights, requires its provisions to be interpreted and applied in such a way as to make their stipulations not theoretical or illusory but practical and effective (see, among many other authorities, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 33, Reports 1998-I; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 100, ECHR 1999-III; and Lykourezos v. Greece, no. 33554/03, § 56, ECHR 2006-VIII).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 51501/99

  CHEREPKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 4508/06

  The dispute in issue therefore concerned only the applicant's political rights and did not have any bearing on his "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Pierre-Bloch v. France, 21 October 1997, § 50, Reports 1997-VI; Cherepkov v. Russia (dec.), no. 51501/99, ECHR 2000-I; Ždanoka v. Latvia (dec.), no. 58278/00, 6 March 2003; and Mutalibov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 31799/03, 19 February 2004).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 4508/06

  In their internal legal orders they may make the rights to vote and to stand for election subject to conditions which are not in principle precluded under Article 3 (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, §§ 51-52, Series A no. 113; Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 63, ECHR 1999-I; and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 201, ECHR 2000-IV).

 
• EGMR, 19.02.2004 - 31799/03

  MUTALIBOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 4508/06

  The dispute in issue therefore concerned only the applicant's political rights and did not have any bearing on his "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Pierre-Bloch v. France, 21 October 1997, § 50, Reports 1997-VI; Cherepkov v. Russia (dec.), no. 51501/99, ECHR 2000-I; Ždanoka v. Latvia (dec.), no. 58278/00, 6 March 2003; and Mutalibov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 31799/03, 19 February 2004).
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 33554/03

  LYKOUREZOS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 4508/06

  Furthermore, the object and purpose of the Convention, which is an instrument for the protection of human rights, requires its provisions to be interpreted and applied in such a way as to make their stipulations not theoretical or illusory but practical and effective (see, among many other authorities, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 33, Reports 1998-I; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 100, ECHR 1999-III; and Lykourezos v. Greece, no. 33554/03, § 56, ECHR 2006-VIII).
• EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 178/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 4508/06

  Although originally stated in connection with the conditions on eligibility to stand for election, the principle requiring prevention of arbitrariness is equally relevant in other situations where the effectiveness of individual electoral rights is at stake, and the Court has consistently stressed the need to avoid arbitrary decisions and abuse of power in various electoral contexts and has emphasised that the relevant procedures for such decisions must be characterised by procedural fairness and legal certainty (see, mutatis mutandis, Kovach v. Ukraine, no. 39424/02, § 55, ECHR 2008-...; Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, § 72, 8 April 2010; and Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02, § 61, ECHR 2009-..., with further references).
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 18705/06

  NAMAT ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 4508/06

  Although originally stated in connection with the conditions on eligibility to stand for election, the principle requiring prevention of arbitrariness is equally relevant in other situations where the effectiveness of individual electoral rights is at stake, and the Court has consistently stressed the need to avoid arbitrary decisions and abuse of power in various electoral contexts and has emphasised that the relevant procedures for such decisions must be characterised by procedural fairness and legal certainty (see, mutatis mutandis, Kovach v. Ukraine, no. 39424/02, § 55, ECHR 2008-...; Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, § 72, 8 April 2010; and Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02, § 61, ECHR 2009-..., with further references).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 4508/06

  In their internal legal orders they may make the rights to vote and to stand for election subject to conditions which are not in principle precluded under Article 3 (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, §§ 51-52, Series A no. 113; Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 63, ECHR 1999-I; and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 201, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 04.08.2020 - 5113/15

  POLITICAL PARTY

  Merits 32. The general principles regarding Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, including the principles on conditions for the eligibility to stand for election, have been set out in, among other judgments, Davydov and Others v. Russia (cited above, §§ 271-77), Paksas v. Lithuania ([GC], no. 34932/04, § 96, ECHR 2011 (extracts)), Orujov v. Azerbaijan (no. 4508/06, §§ 40-42, 26 July 2011), Zdanoka v. Latvia ([GC], no. 58278/00, § 115, ECHR 2006-IV) and Tanase v. Moldova ([GC], no. 7/08, §§ 154-61, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 8513/11

  ABIL v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  The general principles regarding Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, including the principles on conditions for the eligibility to stand for election, have been set out in, among other judgments, Davydov and Others v. Russia (no. 75947/11, §§ 271-77, 30 May 2017), Paksas v. Lithuania ([GC], no. 34932/04, § 96, ECHR 2011 (extracts)), Tanase v. Moldova ([GC], no. 7/08, §§ 154-61, ECHR 2010), Tahirov v. Azerbaijan (cited above, §§ 53-57) and Orujov v. Azerbaijan (no. 4508/06, §§ 40-42, 26 July 2011).