Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RAMIZ JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 60934/13

  SOMORJAI v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 40424/12

  Moreover, as regards what was at stake for the applicant, special diligence was required in the present case, which concerned a pension dispute (see Pejcic v. Serbia, no. 34799/07, § 70, 8 October 2013, and Somorjai v. Hungary, no. 60934/13, § 71, 28 August 2018).
• EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 16528/05

  HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 40424/12

  The Court also held that the Government have not shown that such a claim offered any reasonable prospects of obtaining adequate compensation for the delay that had already occurred and the proceedings for obtaining the compensation for the length of the proceedings operated without excessive delays (see Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 16528/05, § 44, 10 July 2008).
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 39247/12

  PERSJANOW v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 40424/12

  The Court concludes that the facts of the case do not fall within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It follows that Article 14 is likewise not applicable and that this part of the application should also be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova, cited above, §§ 76-77, and Persjanow v. Poland (dec.), no. 39247/12, §§ 55-56, 11 December 2018).

• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 40424/12

  Although Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applies only to a person's existing possessions and does not create a right to acquire property (see Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 82, ECHR 2011), in certain circumstances a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining an asset may also enjoy the protection of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among many authorities, Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 65, ECHR 2007-I).
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 40424/12

  Furthermore, the belief that the law then in force would be changed to the applicant's advantage cannot be regarded as a form of legitimate expectation for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. There is a difference between a mere hope, however understandable that hope may be, and a legitimate expectation, which must be of a nature more concrete than a mere hope and be based on a legal provision or a legal act such as a judicial decision (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 73, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05

  RASMUSSEN v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 40424/12

  Furthermore, where the amount of a benefit is reduced or discontinued, this may constitute an interference with possessions which requires to be justified (see Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009).
• EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 66249/16

  ZULFIYA ALIYEVA v. AZERBAIJAN and 5 other applications

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 40424/12

  Accordingly, it is not appropriate to take up this matter in the context of the present case (see Aliyeva and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 66249/16 and 6 others, §§ 94-96, 21 September 2021).
• EGMR, 27.04.1999 - 40832/98

  BELLET, HUERTAS ET VIALATTE contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 40424/12

  Where, however, the person concerned does not satisfy, or ceases to satisfy, the legal conditions laid down in domestic law for the grant of such benefits, there is no interference with the rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Bellet, Huertas and Vialatte v. France (dec.), no. 40832/98 27 April 1999; Richardson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 26252/08, § 17, 10 April 2012; and Damjanac v. Croatia, no. 52943/10, § 86, 24 October 2013).
• EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 36366/06

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 40424/12

  The Court also reiterates that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee, as such, any right to a pension of a particular amount (see Béláné Nagy, cited above, § 84, and Yavas and Others v. Turkey, no. 36366/06, § 40, 5 March 2019).
• EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 68385/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 40424/12

  However, this mere recommendation does not prevent the Parliament from freely exercising its legislative function in compliance with the Constitution (see paragraph 26 above and compare Sukhanov and Ilchenko v. Ukraine, nos. 68385/10 and 71378/10, § 37, 26 June 2014).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 26252/08

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.11.2025 - 53002/21

  ISKRA DOO BEOGRAD v. SERBIA

  However, the Court considers that this question concerns a matter which goes to its jurisdiction and that, as such, it is not prevented from examining it of its own motion (see, for example, Ramiz Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 40424/12, § 34, 16 June 2022).
• EGMR, 03.06.2025 - 3592/17

  ZUVIC v. SERBIA

  However, the Court considers that this question concerns a matter which goes to its jurisdiction and that, as such, it is not prevented from examining it of its own motion (see, for example, Ramiz Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 40424/12, § 34, 16 June 2022).
• EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 27741/13

  ORDUKHANOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  As regards the applicant's complaint relating to the length of proceedings, the Court notes that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 19, ECHR 2000-IV; and Ramiz Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 40424/12, § 55, 16 June 2022).