Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAGIROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BAGIROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• NJW 2021, 139

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Zitiert selbst (24)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15

  ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 81024/12

  The domestic proceedings concerning Mr Ilgar Mammadov's criminal conviction have already been the subject of the Court's judgment in the case of Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2) (no. 919/15, 16 November 2017).

  The Court also subsequently found that there had been a number of serious shortcomings in the criminal proceedings against Mr Ilgar Mammadov (see Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 919/15, 16 November 2017).

• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 81024/12

  Accordingly, many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague, and whose interpretation and application are questions of practice (see The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 49, Series A no. 30, and Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  Denisov v. Ukraine

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 81024/12

  It is, after all, in the course of their working lives that the majority of people have a significant opportunity to develop relationships with the outside world (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 95-96, §§ 100-09, §§ 115-17, 25 September 2018).

• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 42461/13

  KARÁCSONY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 81024/12

  The Court reiterates that it is not its task to substitute its own interpretation for that of the national authorities, and notably the courts, as it is primarily for the latter to interpret and apply domestic law (see Seyidzade v. Azerbaijan, no. 37700/05, § 35, 3 December 2009; Islam-Ittihad Association and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 5548/05, § 49, 13 November 2014; and Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 123, 17 May 2016).
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 48074/10

  Im Verfahren darf Richtern auch schon einmal "vorsätzliche Verzerrung der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 81024/12

  In view of the content of the impugned statement, the Court considers that the interference in question aimed at protecting a judge of the first instance court against the applicant's statement and consequently pursued the legitimate aim of "maintaining the authority of the judiciary" within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Igor Kabanov v. Russia, no. 8921/05, § 51, 3 February 2011; Žugić v. Croatia, no. 3699/08, § 42, 31 May 2011; Kincses v. Hungary, no.66232/10, § 27, 27 January 2015; Rodriguez Ravelo v. Spain, no. 48074/10, § 37, 12 January 2016; and Radobuljac v. Croatia, no. 51000/11, § 53, 28 June 2016).
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 68762/14

  INTIGAM ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 81024/12

  In this respect, the Court observes that in a series of cases it has noted a pattern of arbitrary arrest, detention or other measures taken in respect of government critics, civil society activists and human rights defenders (see, inter alia, Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, nos. 68762/14 and 71200/14, § 223, 20 September 2018, and Natig Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 64581/16, § 64, 7 November 2019).
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30500/11

  MALIK BABAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 81024/12

  The Court also points out that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court any claim for just satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing together with the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, failing which the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part (see Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 30500/11, § 97, 1 June 2017).
• EGMR, 06.03.2018 - 10644/08

  MIKHAYLOVA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 81024/12

  The Court accepts that the remarks, accusing a judge of lack of capacity to be a judge, represented a lack of respect for the judge and were capable of being offensive (compare, for example, Žugić, cited above, § 47, in which the applicant implied that the judge dealing with his case was ignorant and incompetent; Kincses, cited above, §§ 39-40, in which a lawyer called into question the professional competence of a judge dealing with his case; Rodriguez Ravelo, cited above, § 46, in which a lawyer attributed blameworthy conduct to a judge, such as wilfully deciding to distort reality, unhesitatingly lying or, further, issuing an untruthful report containing false and malicious information; and, Mikhaylova v. Ukraine, no. 10644/08, § 89, 6 March 2018, in which the applicant's speech developed into a personal attack on a judge, imputing to the judge highly improper conduct contrary to judicial duties).
• EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 64119/00

  KAYASU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 81024/12

  Making an assessment on an equitable basis and in the light of all the information in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant an aggregate sum of EUR 18, 000, all heads of damage combined, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount (see, mutatis mutandis, Kayasu v. Turkey, nos. 64119/00 and 76292/01, § 128, 13 November 2008, and Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, § 191, 23 June 2016).
• EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 1413/08

  Verstoß gegen Religions- und Meinungsfreiheit: russisches Verbot von islamischen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 81024/12

  As regards the applicant's argument that Article 22 (VIII) of the Law did not meet the requirement of the quality of law because the notion of "grounds serving as a basis" lacked sufficient clarity and precision, although there may be serious questions in this connection, the Court does not consider that it is necessary in the present case to examine the corresponding provisions of the Law as, in its view, the applicant's complaint falls to be examined from the point of view of the proportionality of the interference (see Ibragim Ibragimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 1413/08 and 28621/11, § 86, 28 August 2018).
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 50446/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 51164/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 49192/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 3699/08

  Žugic ./. Kroatien
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 66232/10

  KINCSES v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 29024/11

  BONO c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 19.04.2018 - 41841/12

  OTTAN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 37700/05

  SEYIDZADE v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 07.11.2019 - 64581/16

  JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 74354/13

  NAMAZOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 8921/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 5548/05

  ISLAM-ITTIHAD ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE
• EGMR, 19.04.2018 - 6477/08

  HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.10.2025 - 62/20

  IMANOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The relevant provisions of the Law on Advocates and Advocacy Activity of 28 December 1999 ("the Law") and extracts from a number of relevant international documents are set out in detail in the Court's judgments in Bagirov v. Azerbaijan (nos. 81024/12 and 28198/15, §§ 38-41, 25 June 2020), and Namazov v. Azerbaijan (no. 74354/13, §§ 28-31, 30 January 2020).

  Accordingly, the Court cannot but conclude that the applicant's disbarment amounted to an interference with the exercise of his right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention (see Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 81024/12 and 28198/15, §§ 52 and 70, 25 June 2020).

  81024/12 and 28198/15, 25 June 2020; and Afgan Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 43327/14, 14 November 2024.

• EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 16358/18

  ANGERJÄRV v. ESTONIA and 1 other application

  Therefore, the Court considers that the general principles concerning the applicability of Article 8 of the Convention laid down in Denisov are also relevant to the present case (see Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 81024/12 and 28198/15, § 87, 25 June 2020, where the same general principles were applied in circumstances involving the suspension from practice and subsequent disbarment of a lawyer, and see also, mutatis mutandis, Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine, nos.

  The majority here lose sight of the crucial role of lawyers in the justice system and, more broadly, in a democratic society as a whole (see Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 81024/12 and 28198/15, § 99, 25 June 2020).

• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 8964/18

  AXEL SPRINGER SE v. GERMANY

  An interference will be considered "necessary in a democratic society" for a legitimate aim if it answers a "pressing social need" and, in particular, if it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and if the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient" (see, for example, Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 81024/12 and 28198/15, § 98, 25 June 2020, and M.P. v. Finland, no. 36487/12, § 51, 15 December 2016).

• EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20

  JUSZCZYSZYN v. POLAND

  In other Chamber cases, the Court departs from the evidential standards established in Denisov (cited above) and - without requiring or considering evidence substantiating the consequences of the impugned measures - relies upon the mere presumption that disciplinary or other measures taken in respect of a judge have serious consequences for the private life of an applicant (see Xhoxhaj v. Albania, no. 15227/19, 9 February 2021; Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 58812/15 and 4 others, 17 October 2019; and Gumenyuk and Others v. Ukraine, no. 11423/19, 22 July 2021; compare also, outside the judicial context, Namazov v. Azerbaijan, no. 74354/13, 30 January 2020, and Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 81024/12 and 28198/15, 25 June 2020).
• EGMR, 13.07.2023 - 1/16

  HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Rn. 68 Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal question raised by the case, and that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014; Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 81024/12 and 28198/15, § 106, 25 June 2020; and Ayyubzade v. Azerbaijan, no. 6180/15, § 60, 2 March 2023).
• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 36658/18

  ZHABLYANOV v. BULGARIA

  (o) disbarment of a lawyer (see Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 81024/12 and 28198/15, § 70, 25 June 2020);.
• EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 74288/14

  DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS RESOURCE CENTRE v. AZERBAIJAN and 1 other application

  Those measures should be feasible, timely, adequate and sufficient to ensure the maximum possible reparation for the violations found by the Court, and they should put the applicants, as far as possible, in the position in which they had been before the freezing of their bank accounts and the imposition of the travel bans on the applicant (see Aliyev, cited above, § 228, and Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 81024/12 and 28198/15, § 110, 25 June 2020).
• EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 13527/18

  LAPSHIN v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court therefore dismisses the claim for costs and expenses (see Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 81024/12 and 28198/15, § 120, 25 June 2020, with further references).
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 72611/14

  TAGIYEVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  81024/12 and 28198/15, § 120, 25 June 2020).
• EGMR, 04.07.2024 - 24460/16

  RUSTAMKHANLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  Making an assessment on an equitable basis and in the light of all the information in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant an aggregate sum of EUR 12, 000, all heads of damage combined, plus any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts (compare Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 81024/12 and 28198/15, § 116, 25 June 2020, and Yunusova and Yunusov (no. 2), cited above, § 206).
• EGMR, 23.03.2023 - 5420/16

  ROGALSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 16.07.2020 - 68817/14

  YUNUSOVA AND YUNUSOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 18.03.2025 - 36057/18

  MEHDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 26.05.2026 - 43237/15

  ABILOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 14.11.2024 - 43327/14

  MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 11.05.2023 - 18287/18

  SÀRL GATOR c. MONACO
• EGMR, 05.09.2024 - 27806/17

  WAIS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 27.06.2024 - 39834/16

  HASANOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 12.02.2026 - 69358/13

  MARTYNOVSKIY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 17.02.2026 - 5878/17

  GULIYEV AND SAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN