Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JANNATOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Jannatov v. Azerbaijan

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  SOMOGYI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  In these circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05

  ABBASOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  In these circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15435/03

  SHULEPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  In these circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008).

 
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 134, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, among many other authorities, Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.01.2004 - 54919/00

  ICOZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  Nevertheless the Court reiterates that particular considerations apply in respect of the use in criminal proceedings of evidence obtained in breach of Article 3. The use of such evidence, secured as a result of a violation of one of the core and absolute rights guaranteed by the Convention, always raises serious issues as to the fairness of the proceedings, even if the admission of such evidence was not decisive in securing a conviction (see Ä°çöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 99-104, ECHR 2006-IX; and Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  Nevertheless the Court reiterates that particular considerations apply in respect of the use in criminal proceedings of evidence obtained in breach of Article 3. The use of such evidence, secured as a result of a violation of one of the core and absolute rights guaranteed by the Convention, always raises serious issues as to the fairness of the proceedings, even if the admission of such evidence was not decisive in securing a conviction (see Ä°çöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 99-104, ECHR 2006-IX; and Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006).
• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 72000/01

  GÖÇMEN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  Nevertheless the Court reiterates that particular considerations apply in respect of the use in criminal proceedings of evidence obtained in breach of Article 3. The use of such evidence, secured as a result of a violation of one of the core and absolute rights guaranteed by the Convention, always raises serious issues as to the fairness of the proceedings, even if the admission of such evidence was not decisive in securing a conviction (see Ä°çöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 99-104, ECHR 2006-IX; and Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  1 and 4, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions, and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V, and Assenov and Others, cited above, § 93).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 13128/06

  URAZBAYEV c. RUSSIE

  Il faut également prendre en compte la qualité des preuves et notamment vérifier si les circonstances dans lesquelles elles ont été obtenues jettent le doute sur leur crédibilité ou leur exactitude (Gäfgen, précité, § 164, et Jannatov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 32132/07, § 74, 31 juillet 2014).
• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 20605/13

  GURBANOV AND MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court considers that this argument is irrelevant, because the prosecutor's decision was a particular procedural action and not one that an applicant should be expected to challenge in order to exhaust domestic remedies, such as a refusal to institute a criminal inquiry or the termination of a criminal inquiry (see Jannatov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32132/07, § 44, 31 July 2014).
• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 61239/17

  JABBAROV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  10865/09 and 2 others, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, ECHR 2015; Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, 11 January 2007; Jannatov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32132/07, 31 July 2014; Hilal Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 81553/12, 4 February 2016; and Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 35432/07, 21 February 2019).