Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ISMAYILOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-general (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.02.2020 - 30778/15

  ISMAYILOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2026 - 44031/17

  Furthermore, she was deprived of the right to hold any managerial and financial posts in public and local self-government bodies for a period of three years (see Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 30778/15, § 44, 27 February 2020).

  Rn. 27 As concerns the applicant's complaints under Articles 8, 10, 13 and 18 of the Convention (see paragraph 12 above), having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above (see paragraph 26), as well as the Court's findings in Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan (no. 2) (no. 30778/15, §§ 105-20, 27 February 2020), the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints (compare Aliyev, cited above, § 25, and Ganbarova and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 1158/17 and 2 others, § 19, 21 September 2023).

• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14

  RASUL JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2026 - 44031/17

  However, in view of the information and documents submitted to it in the present case, the Court cannot speculate on the exact amount of earnings which she would have received if the violation of the Convention had not occurred (compare Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, § 191, 23 June 2016; Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69981/14, § 193, 17 March 2016; and Khadija Ismayilova (no. 2), cited above, § 128).
• EGMR, 13.07.2023 - 1/16

  HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2026 - 44031/17

  Moreover, in the particular circumstances of the present case, the Court does not consider it appropriate to indicate the need for any general or individual measures in respect of Azerbaijan (compare Emin Huseynov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 1/16, § 81, 13 July 2023, and Aliyev, cited above, § 30).

• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2026 - 44031/17

  Rn. 18 The Court further refers to the general principles established in its case-law and set out in De Tommaso v. Italy ([GC], no. 43395/09, § 104, 23 February 2017), which are equally pertinent to the present case.
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 30943/04

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2026 - 44031/17

  Rn. 22 In that connection, the Court reiterates that the mere fact that an individual has been criminally convicted and has not yet been rehabilitated cannot justify the imposition of restrictions on his or her freedom to leave his or her country (see Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, § 67, 10 February 2011).
• EGMR, 18.03.2025 - 36057/18

  MEHDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2026 - 44031/17

  Rn. 14 The Court reiterates that where an applicant is entitled to be served automatically with a copy of the final domestic decision, the object and purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention are best served by counting the six-month period as running from the date of service of the copy of the written decision, irrespective of whether that decision was previously delivered orally (see Akif Hasanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 7268/10, § 27, 19 September 2019, and Farhad Mehdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 36057/18, § 30, 18 March 2025).
• EGMR, 19.09.2019 - 7268/10

  HASANOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2026 - 44031/17

  Rn. 14 The Court reiterates that where an applicant is entitled to be served automatically with a copy of the final domestic decision, the object and purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention are best served by counting the six-month period as running from the date of service of the copy of the written decision, irrespective of whether that decision was previously delivered orally (see Akif Hasanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 7268/10, § 27, 19 September 2019, and Farhad Mehdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 36057/18, § 30, 18 March 2025).
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 51279/09

  VLASOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2026 - 44031/17

  However, in the particular circumstances of the present case, the Court does not find it necessary to determine whether the measure was "in accordance with law" as, for the reasons that follow, it considers that it was incompatible with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 in other respects (see Vlasov and Benyash v. Russia, nos. 51279/09 and 32098/13, § 30, 20 September 2016, and compare Aliyev v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 22365/18, § 17, 11 July 2024).
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 3967/09

  KERIMLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2026 - 44031/17

  The question arises whether the travel ban in the present case was "necessary in a democratic society" for achieving those aims (see Kerimli v. Azerbaijan, no. 3967/09, § 49, 16 July 2015).
• EGMR, 21.09.2023 - 1158/17

  GANBAROVA v. AZERBAIJAN and 3 other applications

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2026 - 44031/17

  Rn. 27 As concerns the applicant's complaints under Articles 8, 10, 13 and 18 of the Convention (see paragraph 12 above), having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above (see paragraph 26), as well as the Court's findings in Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan (no. 2) (no. 30778/15, §§ 105-20, 27 February 2020), the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints (compare Aliyev, cited above, § 25, and Ganbarova and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 1158/17 and 2 others, § 19, 21 September 2023).
• EGMR, 11.07.2024 - 22365/18

  ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen