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 ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  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

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  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

  FOTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  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, 17.07.2003 - 32190/96

  LUORDO 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, 13.03.2007 - 39177/05

  V.A.M. v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 16528/05

  Even assuming that the applicant could have obtained compensation for past delay, the Government have failed to show that such proceedings would have been speedier than any other "ordinary" civil suit which could have lasted for years and gone through several levels of jurisdiction (compare with V.A.M. v. Serbia, no. 39177/05, § 86, 13 March 2007, and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 195, ECHR 2006-...).
• 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, 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, 18.01.2018 - 48151/11

  FÉDÉRATION NATIONALE DES ASSOCIATIONS ET SYNDICATS DE SPORTIFS (FNASS) ET AUTRES …

  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; Miazdzyk c. Pologne, no 23592/07, 24 janvier 2012).
• EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 24203/16

  PAGERIE c. FRANCE

  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, 11.07.2013 - 28975/05

  KHLYUSTOV v. RUSSIA

  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, 15.06.2023 - 31185/18

  FANOUNI c. FRANCE

  En particulier, elle admet que la découverte d'un chargeur de grande capacité et de nombreuses munitions au domicile du requérant le 16 novembre 2015 constituait, au vu des informations reçues par les services de renseignement au sujet de l'intéressé, une raison sérieuse de penser que son comportement constituait une menace pour l'ordre et la sécurité publics (paragraphe 23 ci-dessus) et, partant, caractérisait un indice clair d'une exigence d'intérêt public prévalant, dans les circonstances de l'espèce, sur le droit du requérant à la liberté de circulation (Hajibeyli c. Azerbaïdjan, no 16528/05, § 63, 10 juillet 2008, et Pagerie, précité, § 194).
• EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 40424/12

  RAMIZ JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court also held that the Government have not shown that such a claim offered any reasonable prospects of obtaining adequate compensation for the delay that had already occurred and the proceedings for obtaining the compensation for the length of the proceedings operated without excessive delays (see Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 16528/05, § 44, 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, 20.12.2016 - 39254/10

  PIRGURBAN v. AZERBAIJAN

  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 Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 16528/05, § 50, 10 July 2008).
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 62157/16

  CHERECHES c. ROUMANIE

  Elle estime que cette durée n'a pas été excessive compte tenu des circonstances de l'espèce (voir, a contrario, Rosengren c. Roumanie, no 70786/01, § 38, 24 avril 2008, où la mesure a duré six ans et trois mois, Hajibeyli c. Azerbaïdjan, no 16528/05, § 62, 10 juillet 2008, où la mesure a duré cinq ans et quatre mois, et Miazdzyk c. Pologne, no 23592/07, § 34, 24 janvier 2012 où la mesure a duré cinq ans et deux mois).
• EGMR, 29.09.2015 - 2664/10

  IOVITA c. ROUMANIE

  En outre, la Cour a déjà constaté la violation de l'article 2 du Protocole no 4 pour des restrictions à la liberté de circulation prises pour une durée proche de celle de l'espèce (Rosengren c. Roumanie, no 70786/01, §§ 37-38, 24 avril 2008 (six ans et trois mois), Hajibeyli c. Azerbaïdjan, no 16528/05, § 62, 10 juillet 2008 (cinq ans et deux mois) et Miazdzyk c. Pologne, no 23592/07, § 35, 24 janvier 2012 (cinq ans et deux mois)).
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 30943/04

  NALBANTSKI v. BULGARIA

  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).