Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 19.03.2020 - 22004/11 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2020,5294) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
SATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 41872/10
M.A. c. CHYPRE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2020 - 22004/11
The Court reiterates its established case-law to the effect that Article 5 § 1 may also apply to deprivations of liberty of a very short length (see, among many authorities, M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, § 190, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). - EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 7177/10
BREZEC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2020 - 22004/11
The Court reiterates that the date of the postmark recording the date on which an application was sent is treated as the date of that application, and not the date of receipt stamped on that application (see Bre?¾ec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, § 29, 18 July 2013, and Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 35343/05, § 117, ECHR 2015). - EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 42883/11
KHALIKOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2020 - 22004/11
The Court thus considers that there was an element of coercion that was indicative of a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (see Foka v. Turkey, no. 28940/95, §§ 74-79, 24 June 2008; Gillan and Quinton v. the United Kingdom, no. 4158/05, § 57, ECHR 2010 (extracts); Shimovolos v. Russia, no. 30194/09, § 50, 21 June 2011; and Khalikova v. Azerbaijan, no. 42883/11, § 102, 22 October 2015).
- EGMR, 23.04.2015 - 16499/09
NAGIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2020 - 22004/11
The Court reiterates in this connection that the unrecorded detention of an individual constitutes a complete negation of the fundamentally important guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention, and discloses a grave violation of that provision (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 154, ECHR 2002-IV; Nagiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16499/09, § 64, 23 April 2015; and Mammadov and Others, cited above, § 89). - EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 30194/09
SHIMOVOLOS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2020 - 22004/11
The Court thus considers that there was an element of coercion that was indicative of a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (see Foka v. Turkey, no. 28940/95, §§ 74-79, 24 June 2008; Gillan and Quinton v. the United Kingdom, no. 4158/05, § 57, ECHR 2010 (extracts); Shimovolos v. Russia, no. 30194/09, § 50, 21 June 2011; and Khalikova v. Azerbaijan, no. 42883/11, § 102, 22 October 2015). - EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97
ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2020 - 22004/11
The Court reiterates in this connection that the unrecorded detention of an individual constitutes a complete negation of the fundamentally important guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention, and discloses a grave violation of that provision (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 154, ECHR 2002-IV; Nagiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16499/09, § 64, 23 April 2015; and Mammadov and Others, cited above, § 89).