Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EMIN HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  EMIN HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 16072/06

  FRIEND AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2015 - 59135/09

  16072/06 and 27809/08, § 50, 24 November 2009) and finds that this provision is applicable in the present case.
• EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 38187/97

  ADALI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2015 - 59135/09

  In view of the essential nature of freedom of assembly and its close relationship with democracy, there must be convincing and compelling reasons to justify an interference with this right (see Ouranio Toxo v. Greece, no. 74989/01, § 36, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), and Adali v. Turkey, no. 38187/97, § 267, 31 March 2005, with further references).
• EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 20652/92

  DJAVIT AN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2015 - 59135/09

  Moreover, the Court reiterates that the right to freedom of assembly as protected under Article 11 of the Convention may cover both private and public meetings, including an assembly of an essentially social character (see Djavit An v. Turkey, no. 20652/92, § 56, ECHR 2003-III, and Friend, the Countryside Alliance and others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos.

 
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 30194/09

  SHIMOVOLOS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2015 - 59135/09

  The Court further points out that Article 5 § 1 may apply to deprivations of liberty of a very short duration, where applicants are stopped for the purposes of a search for a period which does not exceed thirty minutes (see Gillan and Quinton v. the United Kingdom, no. 4158/05, § 57, ECHR 2010 (extracts)) or where the length of time during which the applicant was held at a police station did not exceed forty-five minutes (see Shimovolos v. Russia, no. 30194/09, §§ 48-50, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

  MURADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2015 - 59135/09

  Nevertheless, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court must apply particularly thorough scrutiny, even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place (see Avsar, cited above, §§ 283-84, and Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, § 99, 2 April 2009).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2015 - 59135/09

  Ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. Assessment of this minimum level depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 162, Series A no. 25; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2015 - 59135/09

  As to the distribution of the burden of proof, the Court reiterates that "[w]here an individual, when taken in police custody, is in good health, but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention" (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 108-11, Series A no. 241-A, and Selmouni, cited above, § 87).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2015 - 59135/09

  In all cases, however, the complainant must be afforded effective access to the investigatory procedure (see Bati and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§ 134 and 137, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09

  AUSTIN ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2015 - 59135/09

  The distinction between a deprivation of liberty and a restriction thereof is merely one of degree or intensity and not one of nature or substance (see Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 92, Series A no. 39, and Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, § 57, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2015 - 59135/09

  Ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. Assessment of this minimum level depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 162, Series A no. 25; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

  BOZANO v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 4158/05

  GILLAN ET QUINTON c. ROYAUME-UNI

• EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 58717/10

  NASIROV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  What is at stake here is not only the "right to liberty" but also the "right to security of person" (see, among other authorities, Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 54, Series A no. 111, Wassink v. the Netherlands, 27 September 1990, § 24, Series A no. 185-A, and Emin Huseynov v. Azerbaijan, no. 59135/09, § 84, 7 May 2015).
• EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 52924/09

  IOAN POP ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  Or elle a déjà conclu à la privation de liberté pour des durées bien inférieures (Gillan et Quinton c. Royaume-Uni, no 4158/05, § 57, CEDH 2010 (extraits), pour une durée de trente minutes ; Shimovolos c. Russie, no 30194/09, §§ 48-50, 21 juin 2011, pour une durée de quarante-cinq minutes ; et Emin Huseynov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 59135/09, § 83, 7 mai 2015, pour une durée de trois heures et trente minutes).