Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ATAKISHI v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of P1-3 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Atakishi v. Azerbaijan

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 51501/99

  CHEREPKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 18469/06

  The dispute in issue therefore concerned his 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, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 18469/06

  On a more specific note, the Court also reiterates that, while the Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in imposing conditions on the right to vote and to stand for election, it is for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 have been complied with; it has to satisfy itself that the conditions do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate or arbitrary (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, § 52, Series A no. 113; Gitonas and Others v. Greece, 1 July 1997, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV; and Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey [GC], no. 10226/03, § 109 (iii), 8 July 2008).
• EGMR, 19.02.2004 - 31799/03

  MUTALIBOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 18469/06

  The dispute in issue therefore concerned his 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, 05.12.2019 - 8513/11

  ABIL v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  While the Government did not expressly comment on Articles 88.4.1 and 88.4.2 of the Electoral Code, the Court considers that those provisions were also aimed at ensuring equal and fair conditions for all candidates in the elections (see Atakishi v. Azerbaijan, no. 18469/06, § 38, 28 February 2012).
• EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 36702/11

  BEHBUDOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Having regard to the case-law of the Court on the election cases in Azerbaijan..., inter alia, the case of Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 18705/06, 8 April 2010) and Atakishi v. Azerbaijan (no. 18469/06, 28 February 2012), the Government propose the applicant EUR 7, 500 (seven thousand five hundred euros) as a compensation for non-pecuniary damage he might have suffered and EUR 1, 600 (one thousand six hundred euros) for the costs and expenses.".