Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HAKOBYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) Violation of Article 6+6-3-b - Right ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Hakobyan and Others v. Armenia

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 34320/04

  Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 54, Series A no. 111, and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 116, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 34320/04

  The list of exceptions to the right to liberty secured in Article 5 § 1 is an exhaustive one (see Quinn v. France, judgment of 22 March 1995, § 42, Series A no. 311, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 170, ECHR 2000-IV), and only a narrow interpretation of those exceptions is consistent with the aim of that provision (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 58, Series A no. 22, and A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 171, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

  BOZANO v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 34320/04

  Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 54, Series A no. 111, and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 116, ECHR 2008-...).

 
• EGMR, 29.02.1988 - 9106/80

  BOUAMAR v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 34320/04

  The condition that there be no arbitrariness further demands that both the order to detain and the execution of the detention must genuinely conform with the purpose of the restrictions permitted by the relevant sub-paragraph of Article 5 § 1 (see Winterwerp, cited above, § 39; Bouamar v. Belgium, judgment of 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129, § 50; and O'Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, § 34, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91

  QUINN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 34320/04

  The list of exceptions to the right to liberty secured in Article 5 § 1 is an exhaustive one (see Quinn v. France, judgment of 22 March 1995, § 42, Series A no. 311, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 170, ECHR 2000-IV), and only a narrow interpretation of those exceptions is consistent with the aim of that provision (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 58, Series A no. 22, and A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 171, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 42086/05

  LIU v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 34320/04

  Furthermore, detention will be "arbitrary" where, despite complying with the letter of national law, there has been an element of bad faith or deception on the part of the authorities (see, for example, Bozano, cited above, § 59, and Saadi, cited above, § 69) or where the domestic authorities neglected to attempt to apply the relevant legislation correctly (see Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, § 47, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, and Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 82, 6 December 2007).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 34320/04

  That right is of primary importance in a "democratic society" within the meaning of the Convention (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 65, Series A no. 12, and Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 37, Series A no. 33).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 34320/04

  The first step in the Court's examination is to determine whether the measure imposed on the applicants was "prescribed by law", within the meaning of Article 11. This expression requires, first and foremost, that the interference in question have some basis in domestic law (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 86, Series A no. 61).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 34320/04

  The Court, however, is not bound by the findings of domestic courts, although in normal circumstances it requires cogent elements to lead it to depart from the findings of fact reached by those courts (see Klaas v. Germany, judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, pp. 17-18, §§ 29-30, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 283, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 24760/94

  ASSENOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 34320/04

  In order to comply with the rule, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria no. 24760/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57942/00

  KHASHIYEV AND AKAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57945/00
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 25333/06

  EUROPAPRESS HOLDING D.O.O. v. CROATIA

• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  On the other hand, if there is some manifest irregularity which, seen in context, shows that a deprivation of liberty was chiefly meant for an ulterior purpose - the applicants are detained on vague or fabricated charges to prevent or punish their participation in rallies (see Shimovolos v. Russia, no. 30194/09, §§ 52-57, 21 June 2011; Hakobyan and Others v. Armenia, no. 34320/04, § 123, 10 April 2012; Nemtsov, cited above, § 103; Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, §§ 107-08, 15 October 2015; Kasparov, cited above, §§ 50-56; Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos.
• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 67360/11

  HUSEYNLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court has previously applied this reasoning in the context of Article 11 of the Convention (see Hakobyan and Others v. Armenia, no. 34320/04, §§ 92-99, 10 April 2012 and, mutatis mutandis, Europapress Holding d.o.o. v. Croatia, no. 25333/06, § 62, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1774/11

  NEMTSOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously applied this reasoning in the context of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Europapress Holding d.o.o. v. Croatia, no. 25333/06, § 62, 22 October 2009, and Hakobyan and Others v. Armenia, no. 34320/04, §§ 92-99, 10 April 2012).
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 23086/08

  MUSHEGH SAGHATELYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court has previously applied this reasoning in the context of Article 11 of the Convention, including in a case against Armenia (see Hakobyan and Others v. Armenia, no. 34320/04, §§ 90-99, 10 April 2012; as well as Nemtsov, cited above, §§ 66-71; Karpyuk and Others, cited above, §§ 194-206; and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos.
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 1484/07

  KAKABADZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  It is thus evident that the judge was negligent in reviewing both the factual and the legal basis for the applicants" detention (compare with Hakobyan and Others v. Armenia, no. 34320/04, § 123, 10 April 2012), and exercised her authority in manifest opposition to the elementary procedural guarantees against arbitrariness provided for by the Convention (compare with Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 92, ECHR 2006-III).