Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KERIMOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of P1-3 Pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 33554/03

  LYKOUREZOS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 20799/06

  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).

  That is not, however, sufficient to award the sums claimed, because the sums claimed would have to be set off against other income which he may have been receiving and which he would have had to forego if elected, as in the case of Lykourezos v. Greece ([no. 33554/03, § 64, ECHR 2006-VIII], in which the applicant was prevented from continuing to exercise his mandate).

• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 20799/06

  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, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 20799/06

  There is room for "implied limitations" and Contracting States have a wide margin of appreciation in the sphere of elections (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, § 52; 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, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 20799/06

  However, the Court has established that it guarantees individual rights, including the right to vote and to stand for election (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, §§ 46-51, Series A no. 113).
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 18705/06

  NAMAT ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 20799/06

  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 (see Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, § 72, 8 April 2010), including the manner of review of the outcome of elections and invalidation of election results (see Kovach v. Ukraine, no. 39424/02, § 55 et seq., ECHR 2008-...).

• EGMR, 10.07.2020 - 310/15

  MUGEMANGANGO c. BELGIQUE

  Lastly, the procedure must be such as to guarantee a fair, objective and sufficiently reasoned decision (see, among other authorities, Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 35, ECHR 2002-II; Kovach v. Ukraine, no. 39424/02, §§ 54-55, ECHR 2008; Kerimova v. Azerbaijan, no. 20799/06, §§ 44-45, 30 September 2010; and Riza and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 48555/10 and 48377/10, § 143, 13 October 2015).
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  Russland verurteilt: Recht auf freie Wahl verletzt

  In the latter case, the Court has limited its examination to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, §§ 57 and 81, 8 April 2010; Kerimova v. Azerbaijan, no. 20799/06, §§ 31-32, 30 September 2010, and Riza and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 48555/10 and 48377/10, §§ 94-95, 13 October 2015).
• EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 58302/10

  G.K. c. BELGIQUE

  La Cour rappelle que dans d'autres affaires relatives à l'article 3 du Protocole no 1, elle a souligné que le processus décisionnel concernant l'inéligibilité ou la contestation de résultats électoraux devait être entouré d'un minimum de garanties contre l'arbitraire (Podkolzina, précité, § 35, Kovatch c. Ukraine, no 39424/02, §§ 54-55, CEDH 2008, Kerimova c. Azerbaïdjan, no 20799/06, §§ 44-45, 30 septembre 2010, et Riza et autres, précité, § 143).

 
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 41683/06

  PAUNOVIC AND MILIVOJEVIC v. SERBIA

  The Court notes at the outset that in cases where a post-election dispute concerning electoral rights had been subject to review by a domestic court, it has chosen to examine the complaints solely under Article 3 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention (see Riza and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 48555/10 and 48377/10, § 95, 13 October 2015; Gahramanli and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 36503/11, § 56, 8 October 2015; Kerimova v. Azerbaijan, no. 20799/06, §§ 31-32, 30 September 2010; and Kerimli and Alibeyli v. Azerbaijan, nos. 18475/06 and 22444/06, §§ 29-30, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 77909/12

  ROMANYUK v. UKRAINE

  He also failed to provide any information about the difference between the salaries that he would have received as a member of parliament and his other income, if any, during the relevant period (compare Kovach v. Ukraine, no. 39424/02, § 66, ECHR 2008, and Kerimova v. Azerbaijan, no. 20799/06, § 64, 30 September 2010).
• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 78181/12

  SOLEYKO v. UKRAINE

  She also failed to provide any information about the difference between the salaries that she would have received as a member of parliament and her other income which she had been receiving during the relevant period (compare Kovach v. Ukraine, no. 39424/02, § 66, ECHR 2008, and Kerimova v. Azerbaijan, no. 20799/06, § 64, 30 September 2010).
• EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 66811/13

  MARKOV v. UKRAINE

  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, including the manner of review of the outcome of elections and invalidation of election results (see Kerimova v Azerbaijan, no. 20799/06, § 44, 30 September 2010).