Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NOVRUZ ISMAYILOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Zitiert selbst (19)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 16794/05

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints, and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 68, Reports 1996-IV, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 16794/05

  However, there is nothing in the material before the Court to suggest that either the Khatai District Court or the Court of Appeal considered the question whether the applicant had been summoned to the hearing and whether his personal participation was required for the effective review of the lawfulness of his continued detention (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 162, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 16794/05

  The Court considers that, given what was at stake for the applicant - that is, his liberty - as well as the lapse of time between the original hearing and the subsequent extension orders, the courts should have taken steps to ensure that the applicant was heard in person and was afforded an opportunity to convey to the courts his personal situation and arguments for his release (compare, mutatis mutandis, Grauzinis v. Lithuania, no. 37975/97, §§ 33-34, 10 October 2000; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 91, 1 June 2006; and Farhad Aliyev, cited above, § 207).

• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 16794/05

  The Court concludes that the presence of the defence lawyers before the Court of Appeal did not remedy the defects of the procedure before the Khatai District Court (see Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, § 90, 25 October 2007).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 16794/05

  The possibility for a detainee to be heard either in person or through some form of representation features among the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty (see Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, § 47, Series A no. 318-B).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 22491/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 16794/05

  However, the judicial decision did not go any further than listing the above-mentioned grounds, including the risk of absconding, using a standard formula paraphrasing the terms of the CCrP (compare Giorgi Nikolaishvili, cited above, §§ 76-79, and Sefilyan v. Armenia, no. 22491/08, § 89, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 16794/05

  The Court notes that the period to be taken into consideration for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends on "the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance" (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 110, ECHR 2002-VI, and Labita, cited above, § 147).
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 16794/05

  Until conviction, he must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-X, and Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 61, 10 March 2009).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 16794/05

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also be satisfied that the national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 16794/05

  The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for detaining a person before judgment when that person is suspected of having committed an offence: the risk that the accused would fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7); the risk that he would commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10); and the risk that he would cause public disorder (see Letellier, cited above, § 51).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06

  FARHAD ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64

  Matznetter ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 16966/06

  MURADVERDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• RG, 18.05.1905 - 20/05

  Ist fahrlässige Übertretung der Vorschrift des § 368 Nr. 10 St.G.B.'s strafbar?

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

  Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

  In this connection, the Court would once again stress that the gravity of the charges cannot by itself serve to justify long periods of detention (see Ramkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 33566/11, § 59, 8 February 2018; Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, § 53, 20 February 2014; and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 11948/08, § 59, 20 February 2014).
• EGMR, 08.10.2026 - 3395/17

  AHMADLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  Rn. 17 Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Farhad Aliyev, cited above; Zayidov, cited above; and Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, 20 February 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claims for just satisfaction.
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 42883/11

  KHALIKOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  In these circumstances, the Court finds it appropriate to award the applicant EUR 2, 500 in respect of costs and expenses (see Rzakhanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 4242/07, § 92, 4 July 2013, and Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, § 100, 20 February 2014).

• EGMR, 25.06.2015 - 36229/11

  ISAYEVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for detaining a person before judgment when that person is suspected of having committed an offence: the risk that the accused would fail to appear for trial, the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice, or commit further offences, or cause public disorder (see Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 11948/08, § 58, 20 February 2014; Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, § 52, 20 February 2014; and Allahverdiyev, cited above, § 54).
• EGMR, 08.10.2026 - 57948/17
  Rn. 13 Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Farhad Aliyev, cited above, Zayidov, also cited above, and Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, 20 February 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claims for just satisfaction.
• EGMR, 04.10.2018 - 15493/12

  KUKLÍK AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  However, under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, any claim for just satisfaction, including in respect of pecuniary damage, must be itemised and submitted in writing together with the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, failing which the Court may reject the claim in whole or in part (see Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, § 92, 20 February 2014).
• EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 25190/18

  DOCEVSKA-BOZHINOVSKA v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  In view of the dramatic impact of deprivation of liberty on the fundamental rights of the person concerned (see Lietzow v. Germany, no. 24479/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I), the Court finds that the proceedings before the appellate court could not remedy the defects in the proceedings in which the detention order was made (see, mutatis mutandis, Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, § 86, 20 February 2014).
• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 45929/17

  IBISHBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Farhad Aliyev, cited above; Zayidov, cited above; and Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, 20 February 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
• EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 29648/07

  HACIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  However, his request was rejected by the same judge who had presided over the hearings before the Court of Appeal (compare Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, § 85, 20 February 2014).
• EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 52158/13

  MAMMADOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Farhad Aliyev, cited above, Zayidov, cited above, and Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, 20 February 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
• EGMR, 19.10.2023 - 37714/17

  ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 21.09.2023 - 10084/21

  ALIYEV AND BABAYEv. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 1459/14

  SADIGOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 30.06.2016 - 40051/09

  DAMIROV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 31446/09

  TUNCER v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.02.2022 - 43389/16

  HAJIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN