Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HAJIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 6, Art. 14, Art. 7 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 5548/03
• EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 5548/03
• EGMR, 04.09.2019 - 5548/03

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  Kokkinakis ./. Griechenland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 5548/03

  According to the Court's case-law, Article 7 of the Convention embodies generally the principle that only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty and prohibits in particular the retrospective application of the criminal law where it is to an accused's disadvantage (see Kokkinakis v. Greece, judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A, p. 22, § 52).
• EKMR, 06.03.1978 - 7900/77

  X. c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 5548/03

  On the other hand, the Commission has stated that, where there has been an amendment of the criminal law subsequent to the commission of an offence, Article 7 of the Convention does not guarantee the right to have the most favourable criminal law applied (cf. X. v. Federal Republic of Germany, no. 7900/77, Commission decision of 6 March 1978, Decisions and Reports 13, p. 77).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HAJIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 14+6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 14+6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic and Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 5548/03
• EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 5548/03
• EGMR, 04.09.2019 - 5548/03

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 5548/03

  The Court recalls that the right to court, of which the right of access constitutes one aspect, is an element which is inherent in the right stated by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, § 36).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 5548/03

  This is particularly so of the right of access to the courts in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 12-13, § 24).
• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 5548/03

  The Court considers that the applicant's right to have his case re-examined on appeal under these new rules of criminal procedure was protected by the fundamental guarantees contained in Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Delcourt v. Belgium, judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, p. 14, § 25; and Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p. 21, § 54).

• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 5548/03

  This right is not absolute but may be subject to limitations permitted by implication, particularly regarding the conditions of admissibility of an appeal (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, p. 24-25, § 57).
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 5548/03

  They must pursue a legitimate aim and there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, Khalfaoui v. France, no. 34791/97, § 35, ECHR 1999-IX; Fayed v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B, pp.
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 5548/03

  Having regard to its findings in respect of that Article, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine the complaint that the applicant had suffered discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Hentrich v. France, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, p. 24, § 66; and Platakou, cited above, § 51).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 5548/03

  The Court considers that the applicant's right to have his case re-examined on appeal under these new rules of criminal procedure was protected by the fundamental guarantees contained in Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Delcourt v. Belgium, judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, p. 14, § 25; and Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p. 21, § 54).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 23805/94

  BELLET c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 5548/03

  49-50, § 65; and Bellet v. France, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 333-B, p. 41, § 31).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 6538/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 5548/03

  According to the Court's established case-law, costs and expenses would not be awarded under Article 41 unless it is established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were also reasonable as to quantum (see Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (Article 50), judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 38,, p. 13, § 23).
• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 34791/97

  KHALFAOUI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 5548/03

  They must pursue a legitimate aim and there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, Khalfaoui v. France, no. 34791/97, § 35, ECHR 1999-IX; Fayed v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B, pp.
• EGMR, 11.01.2001 - 38460/97

  PLATAKOU v. GREECE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 55959/14

  BORCEA c. ROUMANIE

  Le requérant ne disposait donc plus, selon le droit interne, d'un troisième degré de juridiction (voir, a contrario Hajiyev c. Azerbaïdjan, no 5548/03, § 32, 16 novembre 2006, dans laquelle la loi interne a prévu une voie de recours contre des décisions définitives).
• EGMR, 11.12.2006 - 10404/02

  KRAVETS c. UKRAINE

  La Cour rappelle que l'application restrictive des règles procédurales empêchant les justiciables d'utiliser la voie de recours que leur offre la loi peut poser le problème de l'accès au tribunal sous l'angle de l'article 6 § 1 (voir, par exemple, De Geouffre de la Pradelle c. France, arrêt du 16 décembre 1992, série A no 253-B, §§ 33-35 ; Beles et autres c. République tchèque, no 47273/99, § 51, CEDH 2002-IX ; Hajiyev c. Azerbaïdjan, no 5548/03, § 46, 16 novembre 2006).