Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HAJI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  HAJI v. AZERBAIJAN and 7 other applications

  Art. 3, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 15.04.2012 - 29520/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 3503/10

  A failure on a government's part to submit such information which is in their hands without a satisfactory explanation may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 of the Convention (see Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, § 202, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 3503/10

  In the light of the general principles reflected in Mocanu and Others v. Romania ([GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, §§ 258-269, ECHR 2014), the Court notes that the third and fourth applicants availed themselves of an apparently existing remedy in the present cases.
• EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93

  OZGUR GUNDEM c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 3503/10

  The Court also reiterates that the key importance of freedom of expression as one of the preconditions for a functioning democracy is such that the genuine, effective exercise of this freedom is not dependent merely on the State's duty not to interfere, but may call for positive measures of protection, even in the sphere of relations between individuals (see Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 43, ECHR 2000-III).

 
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  HELMERS c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 3503/10

  The Court notes that neither party disputed the applicability of Article 6 § 1 under its civil limb and it sees no reason to hold otherwise (see, among other authorities, Helmers v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, §§ 27-30, Series A no. 212-A, and Zollmann v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62902/00, ECHR 2003-XII).
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 2668/07

  DINK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 3503/10

  In particular, the positive obligations under Article 10 of the Convention require States to create a favourable environment for participation in public debate by all the persons concerned, enabling them to express their opinions and ideas without fear (see Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, § 137, 14 September 2010).
• EGMR, 24.05.2006 - 20627/04

  LIAKOPOULOU c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 3503/10

  Nevertheless, the limitations applied must not restrict the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired (see, among other authorities, Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, §§ 52-57, ECHR 2001-VI, and Liakopoulou v. Greece, no. 20627/04, §§ 19-25, 24 May 2006).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 3503/10

  The Court has frequently stressed the fundamental role of freedom of expression in a democratic society, in particular where, through the press, it serves to impart information and ideas of general interest which the public is, moreover, entitled to receive (see, for example, Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216).
• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 51534/08

  GAKAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 3503/10

  51534/08 and 9 others, § 388, 10 October 2013).
• EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 62902/00

  ZOLLMANN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 3503/10

  The Court notes that neither party disputed the applicability of Article 6 § 1 under its civil limb and it sees no reason to hold otherwise (see, among other authorities, Helmers v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, §§ 27-30, Series A no. 212-A, and Zollmann v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62902/00, ECHR 2003-XII).
• EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 28490/02

  BEGHELURI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 3503/10

  Accordingly, the police officers failed to prevent or stop the ill-treatment of the seventh applicant and the agents of SOCAR, even if not representing the State themselves, acted with the State's acquiescence or connivance, which makes the State directly responsible for the treatment complained of (see Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, § 81, ECHR 2001-IV; Begheluri and Others v. Georgia, no. 28490/02, § 145, 7 October 2014; and Chernega and Others, cited above, §§ 125-131).