Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HAJILI v. AZERBAIJAN

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of P1-3 (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Hajili v. Azerbaijan

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 6984/06

  Furthermore, the object and purpose of the Convention, which is an instrument for the protection of human rights, requires its provisions to be interpreted and applied in such a way as to make their stipulations not theoretical or illusory but practical and effective (see, among many other authorities, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 33, Reports 1998-I; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 100, ECHR 1999-III; and Lykourezos v. Greece, no. 33554/03, § 56, ECHR 2006-VIII).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 51501/99

  CHEREPKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 6984/06

  The dispute in issue therefore concerned his political rights and did not have any bearing on his "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Pierre-Bloch v. France, 21 October 1997, § 50, Reports 1997-VI; Cherepkov v. Russia (dec.), no. 51501/99, ECHR 2000-I; Ždanoka v. Latvia (dec.), no. 58278/00, 6 March 2003; and Mutalibov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 31799/03, 19 February 2004).
• EGMR, 19.02.2004 - 31799/03

  MUTALIBOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 6984/06

  The dispute in issue therefore concerned his political rights and did not have any bearing on his "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Pierre-Bloch v. France, 21 October 1997, § 50, Reports 1997-VI; Cherepkov v. Russia (dec.), no. 51501/99, ECHR 2000-I; Ždanoka v. Latvia (dec.), no. 58278/00, 6 March 2003; and Mutalibov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 31799/03, 19 February 2004).

 
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 33554/03

  LYKOUREZOS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 6984/06

  Furthermore, the object and purpose of the Convention, which is an instrument for the protection of human rights, requires its provisions to be interpreted and applied in such a way as to make their stipulations not theoretical or illusory but practical and effective (see, among many other authorities, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 33, Reports 1998-I; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 100, ECHR 1999-III; and Lykourezos v. Greece, no. 33554/03, § 56, ECHR 2006-VIII).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 6984/06

  However, the Court has established that it guarantees individual rights, including the right to vote and to stand for election (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, §§ 46-51, Series A no. 113).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 6984/06

  There is room for "implied limitations" and Contracting States have a wide margin of appreciation in the sphere of elections (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, § 52; Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 63, ECHR 1999-I; and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 201, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 77909/12

  ROMANYUK v. UKRAINE

  In so far as the first complaint is concerned, the Court considers that discounting all votes cast in an entire electoral constituency owing merely to the fact that some observers had been restricted in their access to twenty-seven (out of 136) polling stations, without any attempt to establish the extent of that irregularity and its impact on the outcome of the overall election results in the constituency, was contrary to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see Kovach v. Ukraine, no. 39424/02, § 60, ECHR 2008, and Hajili v. Azerbaijan, no. 6984/06, §§ 49-58, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 5005/08

  SUVAGCI c. TURQUIE

  Le litige en question concernait donc les droits politiques du requérant et n'a aucune incidence sur ses «droits et obligations de caractère civil» au sens de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (voir, entres autres, Hajili c. Azerbaïdjan, no 6984/06, § 63, 10 janvier 2012, et Karimov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 12535/06, § 54, 25 septembre 2014, ainsi que les références qui y sont indiquées).
• EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 30244/11

  FILINI c. GRÈCE

  La Cour rappelle que, selon sa jurisprudence constante, les procédures concernant le contentieux électoral échappent en principe au champ d'application de l'article 6 de la Convention, dans la mesure où celles-ci concernent l'exercice de droits de caractère politique et ne portent donc pas sur des « droits et obligations de caractère civil'ou sur le « bien-fondé d'une accusation en matière pénale'(voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Pierre-Bloch c. France, 21 octobre 1997, §§ 49-52, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997-VI ; Hajili c. Azerbaïdjan, no 6984/06, § 63, 10 janvier 2012 ; Parti communiste de Russie et autres c. Russie, no 29400/05, § 143, 19 juin 2012).