Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AVANESYAN v. ARMENIA

  Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  AVANESYAN v. ARMENIA

  Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 44774/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 12999/15

  That freedom entails, inter alia, freedom to hold or not to hold religious beliefs and to practise or not to practise a religion (see Buscarini and Others, cited above, § 34; Leyla Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 104, ECHR 2005-XI; and Bayatyan, cited above, § 118).
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 12999/15

  46113/99 and 7 others, § 89, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 17247/13

  MAKUCHYAN AND MINASYAN v. HUNGARY AND AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 12999/15

  The element of ethnic hatred towards Armenians in Azerbaijan has also been recognised by the Court in various cases (see, for example, Makuchyan and Minasyan v. Azerbaijan and Hungary, no. 17247/13, 26 May 2020, and Saribekyan and Balyan v. Azerbaijan, no. 35746/11, 30 January 2020).

• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 35746/11

  SARIBEKYAN AND BALYAN v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 12999/15

  The element of ethnic hatred towards Armenians in Azerbaijan has also been recognised by the Court in various cases (see, for example, Makuchyan and Minasyan v. Azerbaijan and Hungary, no. 17247/13, 26 May 2020, and Saribekyan and Balyan v. Azerbaijan, no. 35746/11, 30 January 2020).
• EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 2021/03

  NICOLAS c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 12999/15

  https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/03/19/azerbaijan-armenian-pows-abused-custody.
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 37819/03

  BUKHARATYAN v. ARMENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 12999/15

  Turning to the circumstances of the present case, it is undisputed that the applicant is a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses who sought to be exempted from military service, not for reasons of personal benefit or convenience but on the ground of his genuinely held religious convictions (ibid., § 124; see also Bukharatyan v. Armenia, no. 37819/03, § 48, 10 January 2012, and Tsaturyan v. Armenia, no. 37821/03, § 44, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 37821/03

  TSATURYAN v. ARMENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 12999/15

  Turning to the circumstances of the present case, it is undisputed that the applicant is a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses who sought to be exempted from military service, not for reasons of personal benefit or convenience but on the ground of his genuinely held religious convictions (ibid., § 124; see also Bukharatyan v. Armenia, no. 37819/03, § 48, 10 January 2012, and Tsaturyan v. Armenia, no. 37821/03, § 44, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 12.12.2001 - 52207/99

  V. und B. B., Ž. S., M. S., D. J. und D. S. gegen Belgien, Dänemark, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 12999/15

  As to the meaning to be given to the concept of "jurisdiction" for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention, the Court has emphasised that a State's jurisdictional competence is primarily territorial (ibid., § 98; see also Banković and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, §§ 59-61, ECHR 2001-XII).
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 24645/94

  Buscarini et al ./. San Marino

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 12999/15

  Such interference will be contrary to Article 9 unless it is "prescribed by law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims set out in paragraph 2 and is "necessary in a democratic society" (see, among other authorities, Buscarini and Others v. San Marino [GC], no. 24645/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-I, and Bayatyan, cited above, § 112).
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 12999/15

  With reference to the case of Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 156-58 and §§ 217-18, 23 February 2016) and Chiragov and Others (cited above), the applicant argued that, since Armenia exercised effective control over the "NKR", it was responsible under the Convention for the violation of his Article 9 rights by the local administration, including by the "NKR" courts and the "NKR" authorities.
• EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 11275/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 36894/04

  ZALYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  SANDU AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA and 7 other applications

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 41817/10

  CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IN THE NKR v. ARMENIA

  The Court notes that it has recently examined in another case the issue of Armenia's jurisdiction over the territory in question, including similar arguments on the matter, and found that, at the relevant time (that is, prior to the latest hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan which ended on 10 November 2020), Armenia had jurisdiction over the matters complained of, namely the detention and conviction of a Jehovah's Witness for conscientious objection in the "NKR" (see, in particular, Avanesyan v. Armenia, no. 12999/15, §§ 31-38, 20 July 2021, with further references).

  In this context, the consequences of the trilateral declaration signed on 10 November 2020 are envisaged in a detailed analysis in my concurring opinion appended to the judgment in Avanesyan v. Armenia (no. 12999/15, 20 July 2021).

• EGMR, 09.01.2025 - 51448/15

  PETROSYAN v. ARMENIA

  Those cases concerned, among other things, the detention and conviction of a Jehovah's Witness for conscientious objection in the "NKR" (see Avanesyan v. Armenia, no. 12999/15, §§ 31-38, 20 July 2021, with further references) and fatalities involving individuals who had died while performing military service in the territory in question (see Muradyan, cited above, §§ 123-27; Nana Muradyan, cited above, §§ 86-92; Dimaksyan, cited above, §§ 43 and 44; Hovhannisyan and Karapetyan v. Armenia, no. 67351/13, §§ 59-63, 17 October 2023; and Varyan v. Armenia, no. 48998/14, §§ 69 and 70, 4 June 2024, concerning the deaths of conscripts during compulsory military service in Nagorno-Karabakh; also compare Mirzoyan v. Armenia, no. 57129/10, §§ 55-56, 23 May 2019, concerning the murder of a conscript while he had been performing his compulsory military service in Nagorno-Karabakh).
• EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 43082/14

  HAMZAYAN v. ARMENIA

  Rn. 26 The Court notes that it has recently examined in another case the issue of Armenia's jurisdiction over the territory in question, including with regard to the decisions of the "NKR" authorities, and found that, at the relevant time (that is, prior to the changes in the situation on the ground as a result of the Nagorno-Karabakh war, which ended on 10 November 2020 with Azerbaijan capturing all the surrounding territories and part of the "NKR" proper and with the deployment of Russian peacekeepers in the area for at least five years (see Nana Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 69517/11, § 91, 5 April 2022) and a further change in the situation on the ground in September 2023 as a consequence of the nine-month long blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh, the subsequent actions of Azerbaijan and the exodus of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh), Armenia had jurisdiction over the matters complained of, namely, in that case, the refusal of requests by the Christian Religious Organisation of Jehovah's Witnesses to be registered as a religious organisation in the "NKR" (see, in particular, Christian Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in the NKR v. Armenia, no. 41817/10, §§ 48 and 49, 22 March 2022; see also Avanesyan v. Armenia, no. 12999/15, §§ 31-38, 20 July 2021, with further references, concerning the detention and conviction of a Jehovah's Witness for conscientious objection in the "NKR").
• EGMR, 04.11.2025 - 51957/15

  TSILIGGROS c. GRÈCE

  These have been summarised in, among other authorities, Bayatyan v. Armenia ([GC] no. 23459/03, §§ 123-25, ECHR 2011) and Avanesyan v. Armenia, (no. 12999/15, §§ 55-56, 20 July 2021).