Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FARHAD ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-2 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (22)Neu Zitiert selbst (26)

• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06

  It has held that detaining defendants without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, among other cases, Baranowski, cited above, §§ 53-57, ECHR 2000-III; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 60-63, ECHR 2000-IX; Grauslys v. Lithuania, no. 36743/97, §§ 39-40, 10 October 2000; and Gigolashvili v. Georgia, no. 18145/05, §§ 33-36, 8 July 2008).
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 36743/97

  GRAUSLYS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06

  It has held that detaining defendants without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, among other cases, Baranowski, cited above, §§ 53-57, ECHR 2000-III; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 60-63, ECHR 2000-IX; Grauslys v. Lithuania, no. 36743/97, §§ 39-40, 10 October 2000; and Gigolashvili v. Georgia, no. 18145/05, §§ 33-36, 8 July 2008).
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 42095/98

  DAKTARAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06

  It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion that the person "charged with a criminal offence" is guilty before he has been so proved according to law (see Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 38, Series A no. 62), but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority (see Allenet de Ribemont, cited above, § 41, and Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-43, ECHR 2000-X).

 
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06

  However, without overlooking the fact that in any event this thirty-day time-limit was not complied with in practice in the present case, the Court considers that the existence of such a time-limit is not of primary significance for the matter under examination and does not distinguish the present case from the cases cited above (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 147-48, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 23037/04

  MATIJASEVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06

  Article 6 § 2 governs criminal proceedings in their entirety and a person charged with a criminal offence has a right to be presumed innocent throughout the proceedings, irrespective of whether he or she is ultimately found guilty or not by the competent court (see, mutatis mutandis, Minelli, cited above, § 30, and Matijasevic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 49, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06

  Until conviction, he must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-X, and Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 61, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 18145/05

  GIGOLASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06

  It has held that detaining defendants without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, among other cases, Baranowski, cited above, §§ 53-57, ECHR 2000-III; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 60-63, ECHR 2000-IX; Grauslys v. Lithuania, no. 36743/97, §§ 39-40, 10 October 2000; and Gigolashvili v. Georgia, no. 18145/05, §§ 33-36, 8 July 2008).
• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 13470/02

  KHUZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06

  The Court has consistently emphasised the importance of the choice of words by public officials in their statements before a person has been tried and found guilty of a particular criminal offence (see Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 94, 23 October 2008, with further references).
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06

  Until conviction, he must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-X, and Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 61, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06

  The presumption of innocence enshrined in paragraph 2 of Article 6 is one of the elements of the fair criminal trial that is required by paragraph 1 (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

  LAMY c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 25354/94

  NURAY SEN v. TURKEY (No. 2)
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 19.04.2005 - 75788/01

  PIRYANIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 5428/05

  YUSUPOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

  BOZANO v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

  VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

• EGMR, 22.05.2014 - 15172/13

  ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  A detailed description of the relevant provisions of the CCrP concerning pre-trial detention and the proceedings concerning the application and review of the preventive measure of remand in custody can be found in the Court's judgments in Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 37138/06, §§ 83-102, 9 November 2010), and Muradverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 16966/06, §§ 35-49, 9 December 2010).
• EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 34015/17

  SARDAR BABAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court has repeatedly found violations of Article 5 § 3 in previous Azerbaijani cases where similar shortcomings were noted and analysed in detail (see, among others, Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, §§ 191-94, 9 November 2010; Muradverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16966/06, §§ 87-91, 9 December 2010; and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 11948/08, §§ 64-68, 20 February 2014).
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 58904/08

  GAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the CCrP") concerning arrest on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence are described in detail in the Court's judgments in Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 37138/06, §§ 84-88, 9 November 2010) and Salayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 40900/05, §§ 25-29, 9 November 2010).

  Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that it has already found in similar cases against Azerbaijan that raising a complaint of detention in excess of the maximum forty-eight-hour period when the arrested person appeared for the first time before a judge constituted an effective remedy to be exhausted before lodging such a complaint with the Court (see Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, §§ 154-69, 9 November 2010, and Salayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40900/05, §§ 34-48, 9 November 2010).

 
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 4854/10

  HAJIZADE AND ABDULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In the leading cases of Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 37138/06, 9 November 2010) and Isayeva v. Azerbaijan (no. 36229/11, 25 June 2015), the Court found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 67696/11

  ADEM SERKAN GÜNDOGDU c. TURQUIE

  Par contre, si la dernière comparution devant le tribunal remonte à une date qui se situe dans un passé trop lointain, la décision rejetant la demande de mise en liberté ne peut pas être prise sans que le tribunal ait de nouveau entendu le détenu en personne (voir Krejcír c. République tchèque, nos 39298/04 et 8723/05, § 119, 26 mars 2009, Knebl, précité, § 85, Farhad Aliyev c. Azerbaïdjan, no 37138/06, § 207, 9 novembre 2010, Erisen et autres c. Turquie, no 7067/06, § 53, 3 avril 2012, et Gamze Uludag c. Turquie, no 21292/07, § 44, 10 décembre 2013).
• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10

  HUSEYNOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Moreover, legal costs are only recoverable in so far as they relate to the violation found (see Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 176, ECHR 2008, and Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, §§ 245-46, 9 November 2010).
• EGMR, 10.03.2022 - 41326/17

  SHENTURK AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  As the Court has previously held, it must look behind appearances and investigate the realities of the situation complained of (see Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, § 163, 9 November 2010).
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 41105/14

  ABILOV AND MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning the complaints relating to the unlawfulness of the applicants' pre-trial detention and the lack of justification for its continued application (see Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, §§ 174-79 and 184-95, 9 November 2010; Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 11948/08, §§ 61-70, 20 February 2014; and Isayeva v. Azerbaijan, no. 36229/11, §§ 67-70 and 83-93, 25 June 2015).
• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 20605/13

  GURBANOV AND MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION 31. In the leading cases of Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 37138/06, §§ 184-95, 9 November 2010) and Isayeva v. Azerbaijan (no. 36229/11, §§ 83-93, 25 June 2015), the Court found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 19842/15

  HAZIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  A detailed description of the relevant provisions of the CCrP concerning pre-trial detention and proceedings concerning the application and review of detention pending trial can be found in Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 37138/06, §§ 83-102, 9 November 2010), and Muradverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 16966/06, §§ 35-49, 9 December 2010).
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 21571/05

  MINDADZE AND NEMSITSVERIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 19.10.2023 - 37714/17

  ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 45929/17

  IBISHBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 28.09.2023 - 12528/21

  JABBAROV AND ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 21.09.2023 - 10084/21

  ALIYEV AND BABAYEv. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 1459/14

  SADIGOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 24849/18

  KHURSHIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 48255/11

  PANAHLI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 31.08.2023 - 19252/22

  VALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 17.03.2022 - 77612/11

  ISGANDAROV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 16206/06

  BERIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2022 - 43389/16

  HAJIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN