Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 32734/11 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application) (englisch)
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (24)
- EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15
ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 32734/11
Finally, when the trial court refused to order an expert examination of the applicant's hair and nails and stated that there were no technical means in the country to conduct the requested tests, it did not explain the reasons why that situation should not lead to the application of the in dubio pro reo principle which requires that the benefit of any doubt about the reliability of existing evidence should be given to the defendant (see, mutatis mutandis, Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 919/15, § 232, 16 November 2017).Having regard to the submissions of the parties and the Court's findings under Article 6 of the Convention (see, in particular, paragraphs 101-103 above), the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 18 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 6 and 10 (compare Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 919/15, § 262, 16 November 2017).
- EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 2204/11
ANNAGI HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 32734/11
The facts relating to the seizure and the relevant proceedings are described in more detail in Annagi Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan (no. 2204/11, §§ 21-28, 22 October 2015).The submissions on this complaint made by the applicant and the Government were similar to those made by the parties in respect of the same complaint raised in the case of Annagi Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan (no. 2204/11, §§ 57-60, 22 October 2015).
- EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30500/11
MALIK BABAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 32734/11
Furthermore, under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court any claim for just satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing together with the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, failing which the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part (see Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 30500/11, § 97, 1 June 2017).
- EGMR, 18.02.2021 - 65583/13
AZIZOV AND NOVRUZLU v. AZERBAIJAN
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 32734/11
The applicant listed, inter alia, cases in which the Court has delivered judgments - namely Sakit Zahidov (cited above); Azizov and Novruzlu v. Azerbaijan, (nos. 65583/13 and 70106/13, 18 February 2021); and Ibrahimov and Mammadov (cited above); and a case in which a strike-out decision based on a unilateral declaration by the Government has been adopted - namely Rashad Ramazanov v. Azerbaijan (dec.) ([Committee], no. 53596/15, 16 January 2020). - EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 51164/07
SAKIT ZAHIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 32734/11
Nevertheless, that fact constitutes an element to be taken into consideration by the Court in its assessment of the reliability of the decisive evidence in the present case (compare, mutatis mutandis, Sakit Zahidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 51164/07, § 53, 12 November 2015, and Layijov v. Azerbaijan, no. 22062/07, § 69, 10 April 2014, in which the applicants had been searched only after they had been taken into police custody and had been under the complete control of the police, and where the Court found that the police's failure without good reason to conduct a search immediately following their arrest raised legitimate concerns about the possible "planting" of evidence, in breach of Article 6 of the Convention). - EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 34449/03
SHULEPOVA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 32734/11
In ascertaining the experts' procedural position and their role in the proceedings, the Court takes into account the fact that the opinion given by any court-appointed expert is likely to carry significant weight in the court's assessment of the issues within that expert's competence (see Shulepova v. Russia, no. 34449/03, § 62, 11 December 2008, and Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos. - EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 24219/16
KARIMOV ET AUTRES c. AZERBAÏDJAN
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 32734/11
While courts are not obliged to give a detailed answer to every argument raised, it must be clear from the decision that the essential issues of the case have been addressed and that a specific and explicit reply has been given to the arguments which are decisive for the outcome of the case (see, among others, Karimov and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 24219/16 and 2 others, § 29, 22 July 2021). - EGMR, 13.02.2020 - 63571/16
IBRAHIMOV AND MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 32734/11
The Court notes that, as can be seen from the case-file material, the applicant had no criminal history of being involved in drug related crimes (compare Ibrahimov and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 63571/16 and 5 others, § 119, 13 February 2020). - EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04
NECHIPORUK AND YONKALO v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 32734/11
An issue with regard to a lack of reasoning of judicial decisions under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention will normally arise when the domestic courts ignored a specific, pertinent and important point raised by the applicant (see Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 280, 21 April 2011; Rostomashvili v. Georgia, no. 13185/07, § 59, 8 November 2018; and Zhang v. Ukraine, no. 6970/15, § 73, 13 November 2018). - EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51111/07
Prozess gegen Kreml-Kritiker Chodorkowski war "unfair"
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 32734/11
42757/07 and 51111/07, § 499, 14 January 2020). - EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06
Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair
- EGMR, 10.04.2014 - 22062/07
LAYIJOV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 08.11.2018 - 13185/07
ROSTOMASHVILI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 26711/07
POLETAN AND AZIROVIK v.
- EGMR, 16.01.2020 - 53596/15
RAMAZANOV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 58428/10
MATYTSINA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 6970/15
ZHANG v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 17995/02
STOIMENOV v.
- EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 60802/09
FAIG MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02
Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …
- EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 40984/07
FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 68762/14
ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10
HUSEYNOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12
MOREIRA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL (No. 2)
- EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 4854/10
HAJIZADE AND ABDULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
The general principles concerning the right to a fair trial have been summarised in the case of Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 2) (no. 32734/11, §§ 76-83, 7 April 2022). - EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 34167/15
KOLOMPAR v. SERBIA
The national courts thus failed to observe two basic requirements of criminal justice: (i) that it is the prosecution that has to prove a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and (ii) the principle of in dubio pro reo which requires that the benefit of any doubt about the reliability of evidence should be given to the defendant and not the prosecution (see, for example and mutatis mutandis, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, §§ 77 and 89, Series A no. 146; Melich and Beck v. the Czech Republic, no. 35450/04, §§ 49 and 55, 24 July 2008; Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 32734/11, § 99, 7 April 2022; and Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 919/15, § 232, 16 November 2017).