Webinar: Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Mi. den 14. Oktober 2026 11:30 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden
×
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 16.02.2017

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 69234/11, 69252/11, 69335/11   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2016,1344
EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 69234/11, 69252/11, 69335/11 (https://dejure.org/2016,1344)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11.02.2016 - 69234/11, 69252/11, 69335/11 (https://dejure.org/2016,1344)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11. Februar 2016 - 69234/11, 69252/11, 69335/11 (https://dejure.org/2016,1344)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,1344) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    IBRAHIMOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

    Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-b - Adequate ...

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (30)Zitiert selbst (26)

  • EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

    Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 69234/11
    The quality of the evidence is also taken into account, including whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-IX).
  • EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

    Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 69234/11
    The Court reiterates that Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, and the Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which evidence was obtained and heard, were fair, in particular, whether the applicant was given the opportunity of challenging the evidence and of opposing its use; and whether the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms between the prosecution and the defence were respected (see Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 88, 90, 10 March 2009, and Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, § 60, ECHR 2000-II).
  • EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84
    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 69234/11
    In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or of law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140, and Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, § 34, Reports 1998-IV).
  • EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73
    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 69234/11
    That right is of primary importance in a "democratic society" within the meaning of the Convention (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 65, Series A no. 12, and Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 37, Series A no. 33).
  • EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

    KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 69234/11
    Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 54, Series A no. 111, and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 116, ECHR 2008).
  • EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

    POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 69234/11
    The Court will therefore examine the complaints under both provisions taken together (see, among many other authorities, F.C.B. v. Italy, 28 August 1991, § 29, Series A no. 208-B, and Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 29, Series A no. 277-A).
  • EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

    Dieter Krombach

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 69234/11
    The Court reiterates that, although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial (see Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 89, ECHR 2001-II).
  • EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 28901/95

    ROWE AND DAVIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 69234/11
    The Court reiterates that Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, and the Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which evidence was obtained and heard, were fair, in particular, whether the applicant was given the opportunity of challenging the evidence and of opposing its use; and whether the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms between the prosecution and the defence were respected (see Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 88, 90, 10 March 2009, and Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, § 60, ECHR 2000-II).
  • EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82
    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 69234/11
    Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 54, Series A no. 111, and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 116, ECHR 2008).
  • EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 7377/03

    [FRE]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 69234/11
    Nevertheless, the Court reiterates that the very fact of restricting a detained suspect's access to a lawyer may prejudice the rights of the defence, even where an accused person remained silent, or was not questioned, or no incriminating statements were obtained (see, for example, Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, §§ 32-33, 13 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 35485/05

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

    MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 12151/86
  • EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 61821/00

    ZILIBERBERG v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 20372/11

    VYERENTSOV v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 42086/05

    LIU v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 3653/05

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 25691/04

    BUKTA ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE

  • EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 21613/07

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 20652/92

    DJAVIT AN c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 10877/04

    SERGEY KUZNETSOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 33482/06

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 6991/08

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 08.04.2021 - 47621/13

    Impfpflicht in Tschechien: Impflicht für Kinder ist keine …

    Dans d'autres affaires, la Cour s'appuie sur les observations des parties uniquement et, ce faisant, laisse entendre qu'elle s'abstient d'agir d'office (voir, par exemple, Turek c. Slovaquie, no 57986/00, § 99, CEDH 2006-II (extraits), Peev c. Bulgarie, no 64209/01, § 62, 26 juillet 2007, Starokadomski c. Russie, no 42239/02, § 83, 31 juillet 2008, Goubkine c. Russie, no 36941/02, § 155, 23 avril 2009, Oliari et autres c. Italie, nos 18766/11 et 36030/11, § 185, 21 juillet 2015, Ibrahimov et autres c. Azerbaïdjan, nos 69234/11 et 2 autres, § 80, 11 février 2016, Mozer c. République de Moldova et Russie [GC], no 11138/10, §§ 193-199, 23 février 2016, Biržietis c. Lituanie, no 49304/09, § 58, 14 juin 2016, Kryževičius c. Lituanie, no 67816/14, §§ 67-70, 11 décembre 2018, P.T. c. République de Moldova, no 1122/12, §§ 29-33, 26 mai 2020, et Yunusova et Yunusov c. Azerbaïdjan (no 2), no 68817/14, §§ 152-159, 16 juillet 2020).
  • EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 35289/11

    REGNER v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

    Pour la Cour, la bonne administration de la justice veut que les décisions judiciaires indiquent de manière suffisante les motifs sur lesquels elles se fondent (Ibrahimov et autres c. Azerbaïdjan, nos 69234/11 et 2 autres, § 103, 11 février 2016, et García Ruiz c. Espagne [GC], no 30544/96, § 26, CEDH 1999-I).
  • EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 36658/05

    MURTAZALIYEVA v. RUSSIA

    69234/11 and 2 others, § 95, 11 February 2016, with further references).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 74609/10, 24508/11, 60259/11, 63959/11, 67351/11, 67977/11, 69234/11, 69252/11, 69335/11, 69411/11, 69421/11   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2017,2867
EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 74609/10, 24508/11, 60259/11, 63959/11, 67351/11, 67977/11, 69234/11, 69252/11, 69335/11, 69411/11, 69421/11 (https://dejure.org/2017,2867)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16.02.2017 - 74609/10, 24508/11, 60259/11, 63959/11, 67351/11, 67977/11, 69234/11, 69252/11, 69335/11, 69411/11, 69421/11 (https://dejure.org/2017,2867)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16. Februar 2017 - 74609/10, 24508/11, 60259/11, 63959/11, 67351/11, 67977/11, 69234/11, 69252/11, 69335/11, 69411/11, 69421/11 (https://dejure.org/2017,2867)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,2867) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    BAYRAM BAYRAMOV v. AZERBAIJAN

    Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 21613/07

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 74609/10
    It is therefore unnecessary to take the complaints under Article 10 into consideration separately (see Ezelin v. France, 26 April 1991, § 35, Series A no. 202; Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, §§ 82-83, 3 October 2013; and Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, § 85, 15 October 2015).
  • EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 60259/11

    GAFGAZ MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 74609/10
    For a summary of other relevant provisions concerning administrative proceedings, the relevant provisions concerning the organisation and holding of public assemblies, and the relevant extracts of international documents, see the judgment in the case of Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 60259/11, §§ 27-42, 15 October 2015).
  • KAG Mainz, 30.10.2008 - M 26/08

    Eingruppierung Kirchenmusiker

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 74609/10
    26/08/2011.
  • EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 69889/01

    GROSHEV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 74609/10
    The Court reiterates that where an applicant is entitled to be served automatically with a copy of the final domestic decision, the object and purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention are best served by counting the six-month period as running from the date of service of the copy of the written decision, irrespective of whether that decision was previously delivered orally (see Worm v. Austria, 29 August 1997, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V; Venkadajalasarma v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 58510/11, 9 July 2002; Groshev v. Russia, no. 69889/01, § 22, 20 October 2005; and Vasilyev v. Ukraine, no. 11370/02, §§ 48-49, 21 June 2007).
  • EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 35093/05

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 74609/10
    The Court does not find it unreasonable that the applicants waited several months for the official service of the final decisions before lodging complaints (enquiries) about the court's failure to serve them with a copy of those decisions (contrast with Dragun v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 35093/05, 8 October 2013).
  • EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 11370/02

    VASILYEV v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 74609/10
    The Court reiterates that where an applicant is entitled to be served automatically with a copy of the final domestic decision, the object and purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention are best served by counting the six-month period as running from the date of service of the copy of the written decision, irrespective of whether that decision was previously delivered orally (see Worm v. Austria, 29 August 1997, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V; Venkadajalasarma v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 58510/11, 9 July 2002; Groshev v. Russia, no. 69889/01, § 22, 20 October 2005; and Vasilyev v. Ukraine, no. 11370/02, §§ 48-49, 21 June 2007).
  • EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 29503/03

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 74609/10
    It has also ruled that an applicant must show a certain degree of diligence and obtain a copy of the decision deposited with the court registry (see, for example, Çolakoğlu v. Turkey, no. 29503/03, § 28, 20 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 6491/06

    URUCI v. ALBANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 74609/10
    The Court further reiterates that it is incumbent on an interested party to display special diligence in the defence of his interests and to take the necessary steps to apprise himself of developments in the proceedings (see, among other authorities, Uruci v. Albania (dec.), no. 6491/06, 24 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 07.10.2021 - 9626/14

    HASANOV v. AZERBAIJAN

    74609/10 and 5 others, 16 February 2017.

    74609/10 and 5 others, §§ 63-64, 16 February 2017; Ahad Mammadli v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos.

  • EGMR, 26.09.2019 - 56317/11

    MAHAMMAD MAJIDLI v. AZERBAIJAN and 3 other applications

    Firstly, the Court reiterates that it has already found that the dispersal of the demonstration of 2 April 2011 was not justified under Article 11 of the Convention having regard, in particular, to the fact that the authorities had been notified of the demonstration and it had been intended to be peaceful and had been conducted in a peaceful manner until the moment of its dispersal by the police (see Ahad Mammadli, cited above, § 35, and Bayram Bayramov and Others v. Azerbaijan ([Committee] nos. 74609/10 and 5 others, § 52, 16 February 2017).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht