Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  UZEYIR JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Uzeyir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  UZEYIR JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 3, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93

  OZGUR GUNDEM c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 54204/08

  Relying on the Court's judgment in the case of Özgür Gündem v. Turkey (no. 23144/93, 16 March 2000), the applicant also argued that the Government had failed to comply with their positive obligations under Article 10 of the Convention.

  The Court also reiterates that the key importance of freedom of expression as one of the preconditions for a functioning democracy is such that the genuine, effective exercise of this freedom is not dependent merely on the State's duty not to interfere, but may call for positive measures of protection, even in the sphere of relations between individuals (see Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 43, ECHR 2000-III).

• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 54204/08

  The Court has frequently stressed the fundamental role of freedom of expression in a democratic society, in particular where, through the press, it serves to impart information and ideas of general interest which the public is, moreover, entitled to receive (see, for example, the Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216).
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 2668/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 54204/08

  In particular, the positive obligations under Article 10 of the Convention require States to create a favourable environment for participation in public debate by all the persons concerned, enabling them to express their opinions and ideas without fear (see Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, § 137, 14 September 2010).

• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 72250/01

  LOPATA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 54204/08

  The Court would nonetheless like to emphasise that its inability to reach any conclusions as to whether there has, in substance, been treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention derives to a large extent from the failure of the domestic authorities to carry out an effective investigation at the relevant time (see Gharibashvili v. Georgia, no. 11830/03, § 57, 29 July 2008; Lopata v. Russia, no. 72250/01, § 125, 13 July 2010; and Jannatov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32132/07, § 61, 31 July 2014).
• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 54204/08

  The Court would nonetheless like to emphasise that its inability to reach any conclusions as to whether there has, in substance, been treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention derives to a large extent from the failure of the domestic authorities to carry out an effective investigation at the relevant time (see Gharibashvili v. Georgia, no. 11830/03, § 57, 29 July 2008; Lopata v. Russia, no. 72250/01, § 125, 13 July 2010; and Jannatov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32132/07, § 61, 31 July 2014).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 54204/08

  1 and 4, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions, and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see Assenov and Others, cited above, § 93, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 40984/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 54204/08

  Following the hearing, the Yasamal District Court convicted Eynulla Fatullayev of defamation and sentenced him to two and half years" imprisonment (see Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, 22 April 2010).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 54204/08

  The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in assuming the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).
• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 42722/02

  STOICA v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 54204/08

  However, there is disagreement between the parties about the question of whether State agents were behind the attack on the applicant and that it was State agents who subjected the applicant to the violence (compare Stoica v. Romania, no. 42722/02, § 58, 4 March 2008, and Muradova, cited above, § 107).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 54204/08

  Nevertheless, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny, even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place (see Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, §§ 283-84, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts), and Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, § 99, 2 April 2009).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

  MURADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 10.04.2014 - 22062/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 25165/94

  AKDENIZ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 2594/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 42234/02

  ERDEM v. TURKEY

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10

  HUSEYNOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  However, having regard to the material in the case file, it does not appear that adequate steps were taken during the investigation to inquire sufficiently into the motives behind the killing of Mr Huseynov and to investigate the possibility that the attack could have been linked to his work as a journalist (compare Adalı, cited above, § 231, and Uzeyir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 54204/08, § 52, 29 January 2015).

  [10] See Uzeyir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 54204/08, § 71, 29 January 2015.

• EGMR, 10.01.2019 - 65286/13

  KHADIJA ISMAYILOVA v. AZERBAIJAN and 1 other application

  (a) Uzeyir Jafarov, a newspaper journalist, was violently attacked in 2007 by unknown assailants after publishing an article accusing a senior military officer of corruption and illegal activities (see, in this connection, Uzeyir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 54204/08, 29 January 2015);.

  The Court has had to deal with a number of cases concerning respondent States' obligations to investigate criminal offences against journalists (see, for examples, Adalı v. Turkey, no. 38187/97, § 231, 31 March 2005; Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, §§ 8-15 and 179, ECHR 2005-XI; Uzeyir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 54204/08, § 52, 29 January 2015; Huseynova v. Azerbaijan, no. 10653/10, § 115, 13 April 2017; and Mazepa and Others v. Russia, no. 15086/07, § 73, 17 July 2018).

• EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 3503/10

  HAJI v. AZERBAIJAN and 7 other applications

  The relevant domestic law concerning the criminal responsibility for physical violence is summarised in the case of Uzeyir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan (no. 54204/08, § 34, 29 January 2015).

  Given the information in its possession and due to the domestic authorities' failure to carry out an investigation at the material time, the Court is not in a position to determine whether State agents were behind the alleged attack on the third applicant nor whether it was State agents who subjected him to the alleged violence (see Uzeyir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan (no. 54204/08, §§ 58-62, 29 January 2015)).

• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 2840/10

  OOO MEMO v. RUSSIA

  Any failure to do so would run contrary to the positive obligations under Article 10 of the Convention requiring States to create a favourable environment for participation in public debate by all persons concerned, enabling them to express their opinions and ideas without fear (see Uzeyir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 54204/08, § 68, 29 January 2015).
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 2281/06

  [ENG]

  Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A no. 25; and, recently, Uzeyir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 54204/08, § 57, 29 January 2015; and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 82, 28 September 2015).
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 72611/14

  TAGIYEVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  In the present case, although the Court has found a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb, it has not been established that the State was involved in any way in the death or that the State failed to protect the right to life of the applicant's husband in accordance with its positive obligations (see, mutatis mutandis, Uzeyir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 54204/08, § 69, 29 January 2015, and Huseynova, cited above, § 121).
• EGMR, 26.05.2026 - 43237/15

  ABILOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Rn. 29 En matière de liberté d'expression, la Cour ne peut exclure que des activités ou procédures pénales détournées soient utilisées à des fins de répression politique ou d'intimidation (voir, mutatis mutandis, Özgür Gündem c. Turquie, no 23144/93, §§ 40-46, CEDH 2000-III. Concernant l'État défendeur, voir par exemple, les ingérences à la vie privée dans l'arrêt Khadija Ismayilova c. Azerbaïdjan (nos 65286/13 et 57270/14, §§ 158-166, 10 janvier 2019), et les arguments de la Cour concernant l'article 10 dans l'arrêt Uzeyir Jafarov c. Azerbaïdjan (no 54204/08, §§ 68-72, 29 janvier 2015).
• EGMR, 05.09.2024 - 39503/17

  MUKHTARLI v. AZERBAIJAN AND GEORGIA

  The Court considers that the applicant's allegations about his abduction, ill-treatment and forcible transfer to Azerbaijan and that they were related to his activities as a journalist were plausible; hence, the Georgian authorities were expected to act with particular diligence and promptness in investigating those allegations (see, mutatis mutandis, Huseynova, v. Azerbaijan, no. 10653/10, § 115, 13 April 2017; Uzeyir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 54204/08, § 52, 29 January 2015; Mazepa and Others v. Russia, no. 15086/07, § 73, 17 July 2018; and Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan (no. 3), no. 35283/14, §§ 119-20, 7 May 2020).
• EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 43146/15

  NEMTSOVA v. RUSSIA

  However, the Court is concerned that they subsequently failed to give any reasons for that decision - either in their replies to the applicant's several queries (see paragraph 54 and 58 above) or otherwise (for instance, in the bill of indictment - see paragraph 79 above; see also Uzeyir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 54204/08, § 52, 29 January 2015).
• EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 3650/12

  HAZIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN and 4 other applications

  As regards the first applicant's complaint that his right to freedom of expression was violated on account of the domestic authorities' failure to conduct an effective investigation into the attack on him, the Court notes that these allegations arise out of the same facts as those already examined under Article 3 of the Convention and the Court has already found a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb because of the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant (see Uzeyir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 54204/08, §§ 71-72, 29 January 2015).
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 21049/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 60659/08

  KHALIL v. AZERBAIJAN and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 31793/10

  HASANOV v. AZERBAIJAN and 13 other applications