Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FARZALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Preliminary objections 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 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  FARZALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 12.07.2013 - 25424/09

  ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 29620/07

  The Court has repeatedly emphasised that, within the meaning of Article 6 § 2, this is an autonomous concept and must be interpreted according to the three criteria set out in its case-law, namely the classification of the proceedings in domestic law, their essential nature, and the degree of severity of the potential penalty (see, among other authorities, Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, § 95, ECHR 2013, with further references).
• EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 56568/00

  Y c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 29620/07

  However, if the national decision on compensation were to contain a statement imputing criminal liability to the respondent party, this would raise an issue falling within the ambit of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see Allen, cited above, § 123; Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 38, ECHR 2003-II; Y v. Norway, no. 56568/00, §§ 41-42, ECHR 2003-II (extracts); and Diacenco v. Romania, no. 124/04, §§ 59-60, 7 February 2012).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 29620/07

  Having regard to its findings in respect of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention above, the parties" submissions, and the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of this complaint in the present case (compare Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

 
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 29620/07

  This may be so even in the absence of any formal finding; it suffices that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court regards the accused as guilty (see Allen, cited above, § 120, ECHR 2013, and Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 37, Series A no. 62).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 29620/07

  While Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140, and García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 29620/07

  It is the actual occurrence of the first of the aforementioned events, regardless of their chronological order, which triggers the application of Article 6 in its criminal aspect (see Simeonovi v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 21980/04, §§ 110-11, 12 May 2017, with further references; see also Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 37, Series A no. 308, for a similar approach adopted specifically in the context of Article 6 § 2).

• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 3324/19

  MEHMET ZEKI DOGAN v. TÜRKIYE (No. 2)

  Rather, the applicant must complain that a certain act or omission entailed a violation of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto (ibid., § 110), in a manner which should not leave the Court to second-guess whether a certain complaint was raised or not (see, in the context of exhaustion of domestic remedies, Farzaliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 29620/07, § 55, 28 May 2020).
• EuG, 09.06.2021 - T-514/19

  DI/ EZB

  Dabei sind der wirkliche Sinn der betreffenden Erklärungen und nicht ihre sprachliche Form sowie die besonderen Umstände zu berücksichtigen, unter denen die Erklärungen formuliert worden sind (…vgl. in diesem Sinne Urteile vom 5. September 2019, AH u. a. [Unschuldsvermutung], C-377/18, EU:C:2019:670, Rn. 43, …sowie vom 8. Juli 2008, Franchet und Byk/Kommission, T-48/05, EU:T:2008:257, Rn. 211 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung; EGMR, 28. Mai 2020, Farzaliyev/Aserbaidschan, CE:ECHR:2020:0528JUD002962007, § 64).
• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 18269/18

  KRACHUNOVA v. BULGARIA

  This raises obvious issues with the Sofia City Court's intimation, in proceedings not conducted against the applicant, that she was guilty of an offence under Article 329 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Farzaliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 29620/07, §§ 66-67, 28 May 2020).

 
• EGMR, 01.06.2023 - 19750/13

  GROSAM v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Il incombe au contraire au requérant de dénoncer une action ou omission comme contraire aux droits reconnus dans la Convention ou ses Protocoles (ibidem § 110, voir le paragraphe 88 ci-dessus), de telle manière que la Cour n'ait pas à spéculer sur la question de savoir si tel ou tel grief a été ou non soulevé (voir, au sujet de l'épuisement des voies de recours internes, Farzaliyev c. Azerbaïdjan, no 29620/07, § 55, 28 mai 2020).
• EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 5386/10

  ZAYIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  Lastly, the Court refers to its case-law principles concerning the right to a reasoned decision, which have been summarised in detail in, among many other authorities, Mazahir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, (no. 39331/09, §§ 33-36, 2 April 2020) and Farzaliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 29620/07, § 34-36, 28 May 2020).
• EGMR, 01.06.2023 - 24827/14

  FU QUAN, S.R.O. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Il incombe au contraire au requérant de dénoncer une action ou omission comme contraire aux droits reconnus dans la Convention ou ses Protocoles (ibidem § 110, voir le paragraphe 137 ci-dessus), de telle manière que la Cour n'ait pas à spéculer sur la question de savoir si tel ou tel grief a été ou non soulevé (voir, au sujet de l'épuisement des voies de recours internes, Farzaliyev c. Azerbaïdjan, no 29620/07, § 55, 28 mai 2020).
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 36974/21

  STYLIANOU v. CYPRUS

  Rather, he or she must actually complain (expressly or in substance) of it in a manner which leaves no doubt that the same complaint that was subsequently submitted to the Court had indeed been raised at the domestic level (see Farzaliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 29620/07, § 55, 28 May 2020, with further references).
• EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 14879/20

  DURUKAN ET BIROL c. TÜRKIYE

  Par conséquent, pour épuiser correctement les voies de recours internes, il ne suffit pas qu'une violation de la Convention soit « évidente'd'après les faits de l'affaire ou les observations des requérants, mais que les requérants s'en plaignent - expressément ou en substance - d'une manière qui ne laisse aucun doute sur le fait que le même grief soumis par la suite à la Cour a bien été soulevé au niveau national (Grosam c. République tchèque [GC], no 19750/13, § 90, 1er juin 2023, Fu Quan, s.r.o. c. République tchèque [GC], no 24827/14, § 145, 1er juin 2023, Farzaliyev c. Azerbaïdjan, no 29620/07, § 55, 28 mai 2020).
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 15352/11

  NIKOLIC v. SERBIA

  Rather, the applicant must actually have complained (expressly or in substance) of it in a manner which leaves no doubt that the same complaint that is subsequently submitted to the Court was indeed raised at the domestic level (see Farzaliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 29620/07, § 55, 28 May 2020, and Peacock v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52335/12, § 38, 5 January 2016).
• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 37816/12

  AVAZ ZEYNALOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Having regard to the conclusions reached above under Articles 8, 10 and 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see paragraphs 92, 108 and 128 above) and the parties" submissions, the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of these complaints in the present case (compare Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014; Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan (no. 3), no. 35283/14, § 87, 7 May 2020; and Farzaliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 29620/07, § 73, 28 May 2020).
• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 50840/12

  ZELGER ET RAINER c. ITALIE
• EGMR - 43537/22 (anhängig)

  VEKUA v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 16390/17

  LASHUN c. RUSSIE