Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ASADBEYLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, A... rt. 35, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 6+6-3-b - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial Article 6-3-b - Adequate facilities Adequate time Preparation of defence) Violation of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Zitiert selbst (25)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 3653/05

  The notion of "penal procedure" in the text of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 must be interpreted in the light of the general principles concerning the corresponding words "criminal charge" and "penalty" in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention respectively (see Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, § 52, ECHR 2009, with further references).
• EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 26766/05

  Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Zeugen (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren: …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 3653/05

  Moreover, the Court reiterates that defence rights under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention require an accused to be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either at the time the witness was making his statement or at some later stage of the proceedings (see, among many other authorities, Kostovski v. the Netherlands, 20 November 1989, § 41, Series A no. 166, and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-19, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 3653/05

  In particular, where an individual is in good health when taken into police custody but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 108-11, Series A no. 241-A, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).

• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 3653/05

  Whereas there had been several approaches to this issue in the earlier case-law (see, as primary examples, Gradinger v. Austria, 23 October 1995, Series A no. 328-C; Oliveira, cited above; and Franz Fischer v. Austria, no. 37950/97, 29 May 2001, all summarised in Sergey Zolotukhin, cited above, §§ 70-77), the Court attempted to harmonise those approaches in the Sergey Zolotukhin judgment (cited above) and took the view that Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 must be understood as prohibiting the prosecution or trial of a second "offence" in so far as it arises from identical facts or facts which are substantially the same (ibid., §§ 78-82).
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 11454/85

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 3653/05

  Moreover, the Court reiterates that defence rights under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention require an accused to be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either at the time the witness was making his statement or at some later stage of the proceedings (see, among many other authorities, Kostovski v. the Netherlands, 20 November 1989, § 41, Series A no. 166, and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-19, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 3653/05

  As the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1, the Court will examine the complaint under both provisions taken together (see, among many other authorities, F.C.B. v. Italy, 28 August 1991, § 29, Series A no. 208-B; Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 29, Series A no. 277-A; Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 26, Series A no. 297-A; and Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 82, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

  Dieter Krombach

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 3653/05

  As the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1, the Court will examine the complaint under both provisions taken together (see, among many other authorities, F.C.B. v. Italy, 28 August 1991, § 29, Series A no. 208-B; Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 29, Series A no. 277-A; Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 26, Series A no. 297-A; and Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 82, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 3653/05

  In doing so, the Court will examine, in turn, each of the various grounds giving rise to the present complaint, in order to determine whether the proceedings, considered as a whole, were fair (compare Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, §§ 68 et seq., Series A no. 146).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 3653/05

  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, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 3653/05

  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, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  SOMOGYI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 35485/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 14861/89

  LALA c. PAYS-BAS
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 12151/86
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 15825/06

  YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 34445/04

  MAMMADOV (JALALOGLU) v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15435/03

  SHULEPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 42027/98

  TOTEVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 10301/03

  GETIREN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 40962/04

  NEFEDOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 8006/02

  MUTLU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

  MURADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 9154/10

  Schatschaschwili gegen Deutschland - Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von …

  Der Gerichtshof hebt hervor, dass er in einer Reihe von Rechtssachen im Anschluss an das Urteil Al-Khawaja und Tahery die Fairness des Verfahrens insgesamt anhand der drei Stufen der Kriterien aus Al-Khawaja geprüft hat (Salikhov./. Russland, Nr. 23880/05, Rdnrn. 118 ff., 3. Mai 2012, Asadbeyli u.a../. Aserbeidschan, Nrn. 3653/05, 14729/05, 20908/05, 26242/05, 36083/05 und 16519/06, Rdnr. 134, 11.
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11

  FRISVOLD AND FLOM-JACOBSEN v. NORWAY

  § 34, Asadbeyli and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 3653/05, 14729/05, 20908/05, 26242/05, 36083/05 και 16519/06, § 157, 11 Δεκεµβρί&omikron;υ 2012, και Ruotsalainen v. Finland, no 13079/03, § 56, 16 Ι&omikron;υνί&omikron;υ 2009).
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 15405/04

  JUMA MOSQUE CONGREGATION AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  The events concerning Mr Allahverdiyev's arrest and trial in connection with the events of October 2003 are the subject of a separate application (no. 36083/05).

  As regards the arrest and conviction of Mr I. Allahverdiyev, the Court finds that those events were not directly relevant to the subject matter of the present application and, in any event, are the subject of a separate examination within the framework of application no. 36083/05 (see paragraph 17 above).

  Thus, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence and do not relate to the issues raised in the above-mentioned application no. 36083/05, the Court considers that this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention.

• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 60259/11

  GAFGAZ MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Referring to its findings in Asadbeyli and Others v. Azerbaijan, the Court considers that the proceedings in the present case should be classified as determining a criminal charge against the applicant, even though they are characterised as "administrative" under Azerbaijani legislation (see Asadbeyli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 3653/05, 14729/05, 20908/05, 26242/05, 36083/05 and 16519/06, §§ 152-55, 11 December 2012; see also Ziliberberg v. Moldova, no. 61821/00, §§ 30-35, 1 February 2005, and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 95-98, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30500/11

  MALIK BABAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  3653/05 and 5 others, § 204, 11 December 2012).
• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 37816/12

  ZEYNALLI v. AZERBAIJAN and 1 other application

  Exceptions to this principle are possible but must not infringe the rights of the defence, which, as a rule, require that the accused should be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when that witness makes his statement or at a later stage of proceedings (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery, cited above, § 118, and Asadbeyli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 3653/05 and 5 others, § 134, 11 December 2012).
• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 69234/11

  IBRAHIMOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  3653/05, 14729/05, 20908/05, 26242/05, 36083/05 and 16519/06, §§ 152-55, 11 December 2012).
• EGMR, 21.01.2025 - 74601/14

  GENÇ v. TURKEY and 1 other application

  However, both the protection of competition - which is at issue in the present case to a certain, albeit limited, extent - and the aim of maintaining public order are general interests of society which are normally protected by criminal law (for the applicability of the criminal head of Article 6 to an offence which is intended to guarantee the protection of public order, see Asadbeyli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 3653/05 and 5 others, § 153, 11 December 2012, and for proceedings dealing with breaches of competition law, see SA-Capital Oy v. Finland, no. 5556/10, § 68, 14 February 2019, with further references).
• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 15064/12

  ZARAKOLU c. TURQUIE

  Eu égard à la nature particulière de l'affaire, où il y a des personnes placées dans des situations totalement analogues, dont certains n'ont pas saisi la juridiction invoquée par le Gouvernement défendeur, elle ne peut pas déclarer un grief irrecevable dans la mesure où le recours interne exercé par certains s'est révélé inefficace en pratique, ce qui aurait été aussi le cas pour les autres (mutatis mutandis, Asadbeyli et autres c. Azerbaïdjan, nos 3653/05 et 5 autres, §§ 118-119, 11 décembre 2012 et Vasilkoski et autres c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine, no 28169/08, § 46, 28 octobre 2010).
• EGMR, 26.05.2026 - 43237/15

  ABILOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Rn. 17 Les exigences du paragraphe 3 de l'article 6 devant être considérées comme des aspects particuliers du droit à un procès équitable garanti par le paragraphe 1, 1a Cour examinera les griefs susmentionnés au regard de ces deux dispositions prises ensemble (Van Geyseghem c. Belgique [GC], no 26103/95, § 27, CEDH 1999-I, X c. Pays-Bas, no 72631/17, § 42, 27 juillet 2021, Asadbeyli et autres c. Azerbaïdjan, nos 3653/05 et 5 autres, § 130, 11 décembre 2012).
• EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 35637/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 30.06.2016 - 5231/13

  HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 24219/16

  KARIMOV c. AZERBAÏDJAN et 2 autres affaires
• EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 2515/11

  JAFARZADE v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 20.01.2026 - 37457/09

  GASIMOV v. AZERBAIJAN and 4 other applications
• EGMR, 23.04.2019 - 12977/10

  VELICKOVSKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 8516/07

  BUTNARU ET BEJAN-PISER c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 17.02.2026 - 5878/17

  GULIYEV AND SAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN