Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 62775/14 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MIRGADIROV v. AZERBAIJAN AND TURKEY
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for family life;Respect for private life) ...
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... (12) Zitiert selbst (29)
- EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14
RASUL JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 62775/14
A detailed description of the relevant parts of the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court on the application of the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in the administration of justice, dated 30 March 2006, and on the application of the legislation by the courts during the consideration of applications for the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of an accused, dated 3 November 2009, can be found in Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan (no. 69981/14, §§ 50-76 and §§ 79-80, 17 March 2016).The Court refers to the general principles established in its case-law set out in the judgments of Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan (no. 69981/14, §§ 114-118, 17 March 2016), and Rashad Hasanov and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 48653/13 and 3 others, §§ 91-96, 7 June 2018), which are equally pertinent in the present case.
- EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06
FARHAD ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 62775/14
A detailed description of the relevant provisions of the CCrP concerning pre-trial detention and proceedings concerning the application and review of detention pending trial can be found in the cases of Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 37138/06, §§ 83-102, 9 November 2010), and Muradverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 16966/06, §§ 35-49, 9 December 2010).The Court points out that it has already found a breach of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention in a number of cases against Azerbaijan on account of the choice of words used by the investigating authorities in their statements to the press which prejudged the assessment of facts by the courts and encouraged the public to believe that the applicants were guilty before they had been proved guilty in accordance with the law (see Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, §§ 220-27, 9 November 2010; Muradverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16966/06, §§ 105-09, 9 December 2010; and Ilgar Mammadov, cited above, § 127-28).
- EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 16966/06
MURADVERDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 62775/14
A detailed description of the relevant provisions of the CCrP concerning pre-trial detention and proceedings concerning the application and review of detention pending trial can be found in the cases of Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 37138/06, §§ 83-102, 9 November 2010), and Muradverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 16966/06, §§ 35-49, 9 December 2010).The Court points out that it has already found a breach of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention in a number of cases against Azerbaijan on account of the choice of words used by the investigating authorities in their statements to the press which prejudged the assessment of facts by the courts and encouraged the public to believe that the applicants were guilty before they had been proved guilty in accordance with the law (see Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, §§ 220-27, 9 November 2010; Muradverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16966/06, §§ 105-09, 9 December 2010; and Ilgar Mammadov, cited above, § 127-28).
- EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99
SLIVENKO v. LATVIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 62775/14
Accordingly, the Court does not find it necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 4 (see, mutatis mutandis, Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 158-159, ECHR 2003-X; Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 30 August 1990, § 45, Series A no. 182; and M.B. and Others v. Turkey, no. 36009/08, § 45, 15 June 2010; and compare Čonka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-I, and A.M. v. France, no. 56324/13, § 36, 12 July 2016, where the Court examined the merits of complaints under Article 5 § 4 where deprivation of liberty pending expulsion had lasted five days and three and a half days respectively). - EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06
Michail Borissowitsch Chodorkowski
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 62775/14
Relying on Khodorkovskiy v. Russia (no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011) and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, 25 July 2013), the Azerbaijani Government submitted that the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case had not been applied for any purpose other than one envisaged by Article 5, and strictly for the proper investigation of the serious criminal offence allegedly committed by the applicant. - EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 24069/03
25.000 EUR Entschädigung für PKK-Führer Öcalan wegen unmenschlicher Behandlung
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 62775/14
24069/03 and 3 others, § 158, 18 March 2014). - EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 62775/14
As is well established in the Court's case-law, upon being imprisoned, a person forfeits the right to liberty, but continues to enjoy all other fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right to respect for family life, so that any restriction on those rights must be justified in each individual case (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 116-17, ECHR 2015, and Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, § 35, 13 February 2018). - EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07
GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 62775/14
It cannot, and must not, take the place of Contracting States, whose responsibility it is to ensure that the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined therein are respected and protected at domestic level (see, for instance, Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) [GC], no. 42219/07, § 83, 9 July 2015). - EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 62775/14
That review should be capable of leading, where appropriate, to release (see, for instance, Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, no. 30471/08, § 139, 22 September 2009). - EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 10755/13
UZUN c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 62775/14
The Court had found that an individual application to the Constitutional Court offered, in principle, a direct and expeditious remedy for violations of the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention, and that applicants were required to avail themselves of that new remedy before lodging an application with the Court (see, for instance, Uzun v. Turkey (dec.), no. 10755/13, §§ 67 and 69-70, 30 April 2013, and X. v. Turkey (dec.), no. 61042/14, § 8, 19 May 2015). - EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 68762/14
INTIGAM ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 6492/11
Luzenko ./. Ukraine
- EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30500/11
MALIK BABAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 43149/10
SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 67482/14
LEBOIS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 14344/13
ALIMOV v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 9348/14
RESIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 19842/15
HAZIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 72754/11
MUSAEV v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 61042/14
X v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 60831/15
Z.K. AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 11800/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 36009/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 19.04.2018 - 47145/14
MAMMADLI v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 48653/13
RASHAD HASANOV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 07.03.2019 - 38239/16
RUSTAMZADE v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 52902/15
SAKKAL AND FARES v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 31709/13
YAGUBLU v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 4922/04
LAZOROSKI CONTRE " L'EX-RÉPUBLIQUE YOUGOSLAVE DE MACÉDOINE "
- EGMR, 06.10.2026 - 45738/22
UGUR c. TÜRKIYE
The Court also points out that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, any claim for just satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing together with the relevant supporting documents, failing which the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part (see Mirgadirov v. Azerbaijan and Turkey, no. 62775/14, § 163, 17 September 2020). - EGMR, 08.10.2026 - 3395/17
AHMADLI v. AZERBAIJAN
Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that the complaint discloses a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, as the overall manner in which the statements were formulated left no doubt in the reader's mind that the applicant had committed the criminal offence (see Mirgadirov v. Azerbaijan and Turkey, no. 62775/14, §§ 102-109, 17 September 2020).Art. 6 (2) - Presumption of innocence - The Court considers that, by stating in their joint statements that "it had been established" that the applicant had unlawfully and systematically extracted and transmitted confidential personal data of numerous mobile subscribers, thereby causing substantial harm to the rights and legitimate interests of individuals and legal entities, the Prosecutor General's Office, the State Security Service and the Ministry of Internal Affairs unreservedly attributed criminal acts to the applicant, thereby risking prejudging the assessment of the facts by the courts and encouraging the public to believe that he was guilty before he had been proved guilty in accordance with the law (see Mirgadirov v. Azerbaijan and Turkey, no. 62775/14, §§ 102-109, 17 September 2020).
- EGMR, 06.10.2026 - 16077/18
MIRGADIROV v. AZERBAIJAN
Rn. 2 Background information about his activity as a journalist and the circumstances of his arrest and detention have been summarised in Mirgadirov v. Azerbaijan and Turkey (no. 62775/14, §§ 7-28, 17 September 2020).
- EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 37816/12
ZEYNALLI v. AZERBAIJAN and 1 other application
The Court will therefore continue to examine whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society for one of the aims enumerated in Article 8 § 2, but only as regards the searches and seizures carried out in the applicant's home and the premises of the Xural newspaper (compare Mirgadirov v. Azerbaijan and Turkey, no. 62775/14, § 119, 17 September 2020). - EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 54151/11
SAVALANLI v. AZERBAIJAN
In their decisions, using short, vague and stereotyped formulae for rejecting the applicants' complaints as unsubstantiated, the domestic courts limited their role to one of mere automatic endorsement of the detention decisions, and they cannot be considered to have conducted a genuine review of the "lawfulness" of the applicants' detention (see Mirgadirov v. Azerbaijan and Turkey, no. 62775/14, § 99, 17 September 2020). - EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 2059/16
HASANOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
Rn. 42 Having regard to the individual circumstances of the applications and the Convention practice in similar cases against Azerbaijan, the Court considers that the sums awarded to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage on the national level cannot be deemed unreasonable (for a similar approach see Ohlen v. Denmark (striking out), no. 63214/00, § 31, 24 February 2005; compare also Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 15172/13, § 151, 22 May 2014; Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 919/15, § 269, 16 November 2017; Yunusova and Yunusov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 68817/14, § 206, 16 July 2020; Mirgadirov v. Azerbaijan and Turkey, no. 62775/14, § 160, 17 September 2020; Avaz Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan, nos. - EGMR, 16.07.2020 - 68817/14
YUNUSOVA AND YUNUSOV v. AZERBAIJAN
The circumstances relating to R.M.'s arrest and detention are the subject of a separate application pending before the Court (application no. 62775/14). - EGMR - 3103/19 (anhängig)
NASIROV v. AZERBAIJAN
Has there been an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private and family life or correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the restrictions ordered while he was in detention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Mirgadirov v. Azerbaijan and Turkey, no. 62775/14, §§ 115-25, 17 September 2020)?. - EGMR - 50432/18 (anhängig)
HASANOV v. AZERBAIJAN
Has there been an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private and family life or correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the restrictions ordered while he was in detention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Mirgadirov v. Azerbaijan and Turkey, no. 62775/14, §§ 115-25, 17 September 2020)?. - EGMR - 26771/21 (anhängig)
IBRAHIM v. AZERBAIJAN
Has there been an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private and family life or correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the restrictions placed on his rights by the decision of the investigator? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Mirgadirov v. Azerbaijan and Turkey, no. 62775/14, §§ 115-25, 17 September 2020)?. - EGMR - 21262/22 (anhängig)
MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN and 1 other application
- EGMR, 11.03.2025 - 55642/16
AMIROV v. AZERBAIJAN
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".