Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ATAKISHI v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of P1-3 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Atakishi v. Azerbaijan

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 18469/06

  On a more specific note, the Court also reiterates that, while the Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in imposing conditions on the right to vote and to stand for election, it is for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 have been complied with; it has to satisfy itself that the conditions do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate or arbitrary (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, § 52, Series A no. 113; Gitonas and Others v. Greece, 1 July 1997, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV; and Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey [GC], no. 10226/03, § 109 (iii), 8 July 2008).
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 10226/03

  Yumak und Sadak ./. Türkei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 18469/06

  On a more specific note, the Court also reiterates that, while the Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in imposing conditions on the right to vote and to stand for election, it is for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 have been complied with; it has to satisfy itself that the conditions do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate or arbitrary (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, § 52, Series A no. 113; Gitonas and Others v. Greece, 1 July 1997, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV; and Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey [GC], no. 10226/03, § 109 (iii), 8 July 2008).
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 18705/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 18469/06

  The Court reiterates that considerations of expediency and the necessity for tight time-limits designed to avoid delaying the electoral process, although often justified, may nevertheless not serve as a pretext to undermine the effectiveness of electoral procedures (see, mutatis mutandis, Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, § 90, 8 April 2010) or to deprive the persons concerned by those procedures of the opportunity to effectively contest any accusations of electoral misconduct made against them (see Orujov, cited above, § 56).

• EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 37700/05

  SEYIDZADE v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 18469/06

  Accordingly, no causal link has been established between the alleged pecuniary loss and the violation found (see Seyidzade v. Azerbaijan, no. 37700/05, § 50, 3 December 2009).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 51501/99

  CHEREPKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 18469/06

  The dispute in issue therefore concerned his political rights and did not have any bearing on his "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Pierre-Bloch v. France, 21 October 1997, § 50, Reports 1997-VI; Cherepkov v. Russia (dec.), no. 51501/99, ECHR 2000-I; Ždanoka v. Latvia (dec.), no. 58278/00, 6 March 2003; and Mutalibov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 31799/03, 19 February 2004).
• EGMR, 19.02.2004 - 31799/03

  MUTALIBOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 18469/06

  The dispute in issue therefore concerned his political rights and did not have any bearing on his "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Pierre-Bloch v. France, 21 October 1997, § 50, Reports 1997-VI; Cherepkov v. Russia (dec.), no. 51501/99, ECHR 2000-I; Ždanoka v. Latvia (dec.), no. 58278/00, 6 March 2003; and Mutalibov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 31799/03, 19 February 2004).
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 4508/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 18469/06

  The Court notes that the summary of its case-law on the right to effectively stand for election, as guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, can be found in, among many other judgments, Orujov v. Azerbaijan (no. 4508/06, §§ 40-42, 26 July 2011).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 8513/11

  ABIL v. AZERBAIJAN (No.2)

  While the Government did not expressly comment on Articles 88.4.1 and 88.4.2 of the Electoral Code, the Court considers that those provisions were also aimed at ensuring equal and fair conditions for all candidates in the elections (see Atakishi v. Azerbaijan, no. 18469/06, § 38, 28 February 2012).
• EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 36702/11

  BEHBUDOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Having regard to the case-law of the Court on the election cases in Azerbaijan..., inter alia, the case of Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 18705/06, 8 April 2010) and Atakishi v. Azerbaijan (no. 18469/06, 28 February 2012), the Government propose the applicant EUR 7, 500 (seven thousand five hundred euros) as a compensation for non-pecuniary damage he might have suffered and EUR 1, 600 (one thousand six hundred euros) for the costs and expenses.".