Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P4-2 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (25)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.07.2003 - 32190/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 16528/05

  The Court has previously found in a series of cases against Italy that such an obligation imposed on the applicants was disproportionate in cases where the proceedings varied between thirteen years and six months and twenty-four years and five months (see Goffi v. Italy, no. 55984/00, § 20, 24 March 2005; Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, § 96, ECHR 2003-IX; and Bassani v. Italy, no. 47778/99, § 24, 11 December 2003).
• EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 14183/02

  ANTONENKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 16528/05

  On the other hand, in cases where this obligation was imposed for periods varying between four years and three months and four years and ten months, the Court, having also had regard to other specific circumstances of each case, did not find the restriction of the applicants" freedom of movement disproportionate (see Fedorov and Fedorova v. Russia, no. 31008/02, §§ 42-47, 13 October 2005, and Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, §§ 62-67, 22 November 2005).
• EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 47778/99

  BASSANI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 16528/05

  The Court has previously found in a series of cases against Italy that such an obligation imposed on the applicants was disproportionate in cases where the proceedings varied between thirteen years and six months and twenty-four years and five months (see Goffi v. Italy, no. 55984/00, § 20, 24 March 2005; Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, § 96, ECHR 2003-IX; and Bassani v. Italy, no. 47778/99, § 24, 11 December 2003).

• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 55984/00

  GOFFI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 16528/05

  The Court has previously found in a series of cases against Italy that such an obligation imposed on the applicants was disproportionate in cases where the proceedings varied between thirteen years and six months and twenty-four years and five months (see Goffi v. Italy, no. 55984/00, § 20, 24 March 2005; Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, § 96, ECHR 2003-IX; and Bassani v. Italy, no. 47778/99, § 24, 11 December 2003).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 16528/05

  It is for the applicant to select the legal remedy that is most appropriate in the circumstances of the case (see, among other authorities, Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 12, § 23, and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 80, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 16528/05

  The reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, regard being had to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and the conduct of the competent authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 19, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 16528/05

  In order to comply with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, such a restriction should be "in accordance with the law", pursue one or more of the legitimate aims contemplated in paragraph 3 of the same Article, and be "necessary in a democratic society" (see Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. 19, § 39).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 16528/05

  The reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, regard being had to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and the conduct of the competent authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 19, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 16528/05

  It is not for the Court to ascertain what were the particular remedies alluded to (see, mutatis mutandis, Foti and Others v. Italy, judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, p. 17, § 48).
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 10/10

  BRUNNER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 16528/05

  10/10/2008.
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00

  NAKHMANOVICH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 39177/05

  V.A.M. v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 15007/02

  IVANOV v. UKRAINE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 48151/11

  FEDERATION NATIONALE DES SYNDICATS SPORTIFS (FNASS) ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Le Gouvernement rappelle que la jurisprudence de la Cour relative aux restrictions à la liberté de circulation concerne des mesures d'assignation à résidence (Labita c. Italie [GC], no 26772/95, CEDH 2000-IV) ou d'interdiction de quitter le lieu de résidence (Hajibeyli c. Azerbaïdjan, no 16528/05, 10 juillet 2008; Miażdżyk c. Pologne, no 23592/07, 24 janvier 2012).
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06

  FARHAD ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court reiterates that the purpose of the domestic-remedies rule in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the alleged violations before they are submitted to the Court (see, among other authorities, Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 16528/05, § 35, 10 July 2008).
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

  ROMANOVA v. RUSSIA

  It is not for the Court to ascertain what were the particular remedies alluded to (see, among others, Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 16528/05, § 41, 10 July 2008).

• EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 28975/05

  [ENG]

  The Court has examined the proportionality of travel restrictions which were imposed in various contexts: a travel ban imposed as a measure of police supervision of a person suspected of having connections with the Mafia (see Labita, cited above, §§ 193-197); the seizure, as part of the on-the-spot investigation, and subsequent confiscation of a passport of a person who was neither prosecuted nor considered to be a witness in the criminal proceedings (see Baumann, cited above, §§ 65-67); a prohibition on a bankrupt moving away from his place of residence for the duration of the bankruptcy proceedings (see Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, §§ 96-97, ECHR 2003-IX); the seizure of the applicant's passport for refusal to pay a fine for a customs offence (see Napijalo v. Croatia, no. 66485/01, §§ 78-82, 13 November 2003); an obligation not to abscond imposed on a suspect pending criminal proceedings against him (see, among many other examples, Fedorov and Fedorova v. Russia, no. 31008/02, §§ 39-47, 13 October 2005; Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, §§ 59-67, 22 November 2005; Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, §§ 90-97, 7 December 2006; Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 16528/05, §§ 60-69, 10 July 2008; Makedonski v. Bulgaria, no. 36036/04, §§ 39-46, 20 January 2011; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, §§ 55-58, 17 February 2011; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, §§ 47-52, 7 June 2011; and Miazdzyk v. Poland, no. 23592/07, §§ 33-42, 24 January 2012); travel restrictions imposed for refusal to pay a tax debt (see Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, §§ 118-130, 23 May 2006); travel restrictions imposed on account of knowledge of State secrets (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, §§ 44-52, ECHR 2006-XV, and Soltysyak v. Russia, no. 4663/05, §§ 46-54, 10 February 2011); court orders prohibiting minor children from being removed to a foreign country (see Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, §§ 214-215, 27 September 2011); and a travel ban imposed on account of a breach of the immigration rules of another country (see Stamose v. Bulgaria, no. 29713/05, §§ 33-37, 27 November 2012).
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 45875/06

  RAFIG ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court reiterates that the purpose of the domestic-remedies rule in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the alleged violations before they are submitted to the Court (see, among other authorities, Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 16528/05, § 35, 10 July 2008, and Farhad Aliyev, cited above, § 232).
• EGMR, 25.08.2026 - 25527/23

  ALISHOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Rn. 11 The Court notes that doubts arise as to the existence of any domestic remedy capable of providing effective redress for the alleged breach (see, mutatis mutandis, Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 16528/05, §§ 35-46, 10 July 2008).
• EGMR, 16.05.2024 - 34749/16

  DOMENJOUD c. FRANCE et 1 autre requête

  Rn. 103 Toutefois, une restriction à la liberté de circulation ne peut être justifiée, dans une affaire donnée, que s'il existe des indices clairs d'une véritable exigence d'intérêt public prévalant sur le droit de l'individu à la liberté de circulation (Hajibeyli c. Azerbaïdjan, no 16528/05, § 63, 10 juillet 2008, Nalbantski c. Bulgarie, no 30943/04, § 65, 10 février 2011, et Popoviciu c. Roumanie, no 52942/09, § 91, 1er mars 2016).
• EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 24203/16

  PAGERIE c. FRANCE et 1 autre affaire

  Toutefois, une restriction à la liberté de circulation ne peut être justifiée, dans une affaire donnée, que s'il existe des indices clairs d'une véritable exigence d'intérêt public prévalant sur le droit de l'individu à la liberté de circulation (Hajibeyli c. Azerbaïdjan, no 16528/05, § 63, 10 juillet 2008, Nalbantski c. Bulgarie, no 30943/04, § 65, 10 février 2011, et Popoviciu c. Roumanie, no 52942/09, § 91, 1er mars 2016).
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 30943/04

  [FRE]

  However, such restrictions can be justified in a given case only if there are clear indications of a genuine public interest which outweigh the individual's right to freedom of movement (see, mutatis mutandis, Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 16528/05, § 63 in fine, 10 July 2008).
• EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 18274/04

  BORZHONOV v. RUSSIA

  As to a remedy concerning a complaint about the length of proceedings, the decisive element in assessing its effectiveness is whether the applicant can raise this complaint before the domestic courts by claiming a specific redress; in other words, whether a remedy exists that could answer his complaints by providing direct and speedy redress, and not merely indirect protection of the rights guaranteed in Article 6 of the Convention (see Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 16528/05, § 39, 10 July 2008).
• EGMR, 13.05.2025 - 37055/22

  SPITERI v. MALTA
• EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 39254/10

  PIRGURBAN v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 15.06.2023 - 31185/18

  FANOUNI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 3627/06

  GRIGORYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 05.05.2026 - 36449/17

  Z.A. AND K.S. v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 40424/12

  JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 52942/09

  POPOVICIU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 3967/09

  KERIMLI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 12717/06

  KRAVTAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 62157/16

  CHERECHES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 29.09.2015 - 2664/10

  IOVITA c. ROUMANIE et 1 autre requête
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 23592/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.05.2011 - 1328/04

  DOROSHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 36194/24 (anhängig)

  HASANOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 24733/04

  PFEIFER v. BULGARIA