Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YUNUSOVA AND YUNUSOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 5 - Right ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  YUNUSOVA AND YUNUSOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 18, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. ... 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 41604/98

  Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens und der Wohnung (Einsatz von Durchsuchungen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2020 - 68817/14

  However, in the Court's view, the above unspecified "emerging necessity" within the criminal case against R.M. and the mere fact that the latter was in close relationship with the applicants and had cooperated with the Association cannot be considered, in the absence of any concrete purpose of those measures, as reasonable grounds for suspecting that evidence relevant for the investigation of that criminal case might have been found as a result of those searches (compare Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, § 41, ECHR 2005 IV where the search and seizure order was aimed at disclosing the identity of the person liable for the speeding offence).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2020 - 68817/14

  It adopts the conclusions that are, in its view, supported by the free evaluation of all evidence, including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties" submissions (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005 VII).
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  DENISOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2020 - 68817/14

  In this context, the Court reiterates that the concept of "private life" is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition (see Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, § 47, ECHR 2001-I; Barbulescu v. Romania [GC], no. 61496/08, § 70, 5 September 2017 (extracts); and Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 95, 25 September 2018), which covers also the physical and psychological integrity of a person (Medzlis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no. 17224/11, § 76, 27 June 2017).
• EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 26629/95

  WITOLD LITWA c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2020 - 68817/14

  The Convention here essentially refers back to national law and states the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof, but it requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be consistent with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect individuals from arbitrariness (see Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, §§ 72-73, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

  CHUMAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2020 - 68817/14

  Having regard to the parties" submissions and all the material in its possession, the Court considers that the evidence before it does not enable it to find beyond reasonable doubt that the applicants were subjected to ill-treatment as alleged (see Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, §§ 103-04, 24 April 2012, and contrast Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 94-95, ECHR 2010).

• EGMR, 08.04.2021 - 47621/13

  Impfpflicht in Tschechien: Impflicht für Kinder ist keine …

  69234/11 and 2 others, § 80, 11 February 2016; Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 193-199, 23 February 2016; Bir?¾ietis v. Lithuania, no. 49304/09, § 58, 14 June 2016; Kry?¾evicius v. Lithuania, no. 67816/14, §§ 67-70, 11 December 2018; P.T. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 1122/12, §§ 29-33, 26 May 2020; and Yunusova and Yunusov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 68817/14, §§ 152-159, 16 July 2020).
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 2059/16

  HASANOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Having regard to the individual circumstances of the applications and the Convention practice in similar cases against Azerbaijan, the Court considers that the sums awarded to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage on the national level cannot be deemed unreasonable (for a similar approach see Ohlen v. Denmark (striking out), no. 63214/00, § 31, 24 February 2005; compare also Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 15172/13, § 151, 22 May 2014; Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 919/15, § 269, 16 November 2017; Yunusova and Yunusov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 68817/14, § 206, 16 July 2020; Mirgadirov v. Azerbaijan and Turkey, no. 62775/14, § 160, 17 September 2020; Avaz Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan, nos.