Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 54204/08 |
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
Wird zitiert von ... (4) Neu Zitiert selbst (9)
- 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
OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
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, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
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, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00
KABLAN contre la TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 54204/08
In all cases, however, the complainant must be afforded effective access to the investigatory procedure (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§ 134 and 137, ECHR 2004-IV). - EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95
McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI
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, 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, 17.07.2008 - 42234/02
ERDEM v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 54204/08
The Court further reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention also requires the authorities to investigate allegations of ill-treatment when they are "arguable" and "raise a reasonable suspicion", even if such treatment is administered by private individuals (see, among many other authorities, Ay v. Turkey, no. 30951/96, §§ 59-60, 22 March 2005; Mehmet Ümit Erdem v. Turkey, no. 42234/02, § 26, 17 July 2008; and Beganovic v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, § 66, 25 June 2009). - EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05
MURADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
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, 14.09.2010 - 2668/07
DINK c. TURQUIE
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, 10.01.2019 - 65286/13
KHADIJA ISMAYILOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
(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, Adali 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, 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, 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, 23.02.2016 - 2281/06
ALEKSANDR ANDREYEV v. RUSSIA
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).