Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 11 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - domestic and Convention proceedings ...

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 44363/02

  Such interference will not be justified under the terms of Article 11 of the Convention unless it was "prescribed by law", pursued one or more of the legitimate aims set out in paragraph 2 of that Article and was "necessary in a democratic society" for the achievement of that aim or aims (see e.g. Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 104, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30985/96

  HASSAN ET TCHAOUCH c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 44363/02

  Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion and the manner of its exercise (see Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 84, ECHR 2000-XI; and Maestri, cited above, § 30).
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 44363/02

  The law should be accessible to the persons concerned and formulated with sufficient precision to enable them - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see e.g. Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; Adalı v. Turkey, no. 38187/97, § 272, 31 March 2005; and Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-III).

 
• EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 38187/97

  ADALI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 44363/02

  The law should be accessible to the persons concerned and formulated with sufficient precision to enable them - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see e.g. Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; Adalı v. Turkey, no. 38187/97, § 272, 31 March 2005; and Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 13.07.1983 - 8737/79

  Zimmermann und Steiner ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 44363/02

  It is the duty of the Contracting State to organise its domestic state-registration system and take necessary remedial measures so as to allow the relevant authorities to comply with the time-limits imposed by its own law and to avoid any unreasonable delays in this respect (see, by analogy, Martins Moreira v. Portugal, judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 143, p. 19, §§ 53-54; Unión Alimentaria Sanders S.A. v. Spain, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 157, p. 15, § 40; and Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland, judgment of 13 July 1983, Series A no. 66, pp. 12-13, § 29).
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 44363/02

  The Court recalls that the word "victim" denotes the person directly affected by the act or omission which is in issue (see e.g. Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 13, § 27).

• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 4158/05

  GILLAN ET QUINTON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise (Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-V; Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 4, ECHR 2000-XI; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; see also, amongst other examples, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, §§ 88-90, Series A no. 61; Funke v. France, §§ 56-57, judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A; Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 119, 20 June 2002; Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 44363/02, § 62, 1 February 2007; Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, § 46, ECHR 2007-XI (extracts); Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 125, 12 June 2008; Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan v. Armenia, no. 32283/04, § 81, 17 June 2008).
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 24117/08

  BERNH LARSEN HOLDING AS AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-V; Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 4, ECHR 2000-XI; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; see also, amongst other examples, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, §§ 88-90, Series A no. 61; Funke v. France, §§ 56-57, judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A; Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 119, 20 June 2002; Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 44363/02, § 62, 1 February 2007; Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, § 46, ECHR 2007-XI (extracts); Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 125, 12 June 2008; and Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan v. Armenia, no. 32283/04, § 81, 17 June 2008).
• EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 7/08

  TANASE v. MOLDOVA

  A cet égard, elle renvoie à sa jurisprudence concernant la perte de la qualité de victime: dans certaines affaires, elle a étudié des exceptions du gouvernement défendeur consistant à dire que des mesures prises par ou dans l'Etat défendeur postérieurement à l'introduction de la requête auprès de la Cour avaient apporté un redressement adéquat de la violation alléguée, de sorte que le requérant ne pouvait plus passer pour victime au sens de l'article 34 de la Convention (voir, par exemple, Amuur c. France, 25 juin 1996, § 36, Recueil 1996-III ; Chevrol c. France, no 49636/99, §§ 37-43, CEDH 2003-III ; Siliadin c. France, no 73316/01, §§ 54 et 63, CEDH 2005-VII ; et Ramazanova et autres c. Azerbaïdjan, no 44363/02, §§ 36-39, 1er février 2007).

 
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 41561/07

  THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN - PIRIN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (No. 2)

  In a number of cases the Court has treated such refusals in themselves as interferences with the right to freedom of association (see Sidiropoulos and Others v. Greece, 10 July 1998, § 31, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; APEH Üldözötteinek Szövetsége and Others v. Hungary (dec.), no. 32367/96, 31 August 1999; Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, § 52, ECHR 2004-I; Partidul Comunistilor (Nepeceristi) and Ungureanu v. Romania, no. 46626/99, § 27, 3 February 2005; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others, cited above, § 53; Tsonev v. Bulgaria, no. 45963/99, § 43, 13 April 2006; Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, § 71, ECHR 2006-XI; Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 44363/02, § 60, 1 February 2007; Zhechev v. Bulgaria, no. 57045/00, § 37, 21 June 2007; Bekir-Ousta and Others v. Greece, no. 35151/05, § 40, 11 October 2007; and Emin and Others v. Greece, no. 34144/05, § 37, 26 March 2008).
• EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15

  ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  However, where an applicant continues to pursue the domestic remedies after the lodging of his application but before the decision on its admissibility is reached, the Court examines the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies as of the time it decides on the admissibility of the application, and not as of the time of lodging of the application (see Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 44363/02, § 42, 1 February 2007).
• EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 7867/09

  GASIMOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  In such circumstances, while it is true that the judgement in the applicant's favour was enforced, the Court finds that the measures taken in the applicant's favour were nevertheless insufficient to deprive her of "victim" status in the present case (compare with Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 44363/02, § 38, 1 February 2007).
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 34960/04

  THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (No. 2)

  The Court has in a number of cases treated such refusals in themselves as interferences with the right to freedom of association (see Sidiropoulos and Others v. Greece, 10 July 1998, § 31, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; APEH Üldözötteinek Szövetsége and Others v. Hungary (dec.), no. 32367/96, 31 August 1999; Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, § 52, ECHR 2004-I; Partidul Comunistilor (Nepeceristi) and Ungureanu v. Romania, no. 46626/99, § 27, 3 February 2005; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others, cited above, § 53; Tsonev v. Bulgaria, no. 45963/99, § 43, 13 April 2006; Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, § 71, ECHR 2006-XI; Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 44363/02, § 60, 1 February 2007; Zhechev v. Bulgaria, no. 57045/00, § 37, 21 June 2007; Bekir-Ousta and Others v. Greece, no. 35151/05, § 40, 11 October 2007; and Emin and Others v. Greece, no. 34144/05, § 37, 26 March 2008).
• EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 2162/05

  THE ARGES COLLEGE OF LEGAL ADVISERS v. ROMANIA

  Certainly States have a right to satisfy themselves that an association's aim and activities are in conformity with the rules laid down in legislation, but they must do so in a manner compatible with their obligations under the Convention and subject to review by the Convention institutions (see Sidiropoulos and Others v. Greece, 10 July 1998, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 59491/00, § 57, 19 January 2006; The Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, § 59, ECHR 2006-...; and Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 44363/02, § 54, 1 February 2007).
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 5548/05

  ISLAM-ITTIHAD ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  The law should be accessible to the persons concerned and formulated with sufficient precision to enable them-if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I, and Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 44363/02, § 62, 1 February 2007).
• EGMR, 03.04.2008 - 40269/02

  KORETSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Certainly States have a right to satisfy themselves that an association's aim and activities are in conformity with the rules laid down in legislation, but they must do so in a manner compatible with their obligations under the Convention and subject to review by the Convention institutions (see Sidiropoulos and Others v. Greece, judgment of 10 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV, pp. 1614-15, § 40; The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 59491/00, § 57, 19 January 2006; The Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, § 59, ECHR 2006-...; and Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 44363/02, § 54, 1 February 2007).