Webinar: Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Mi. den 14. Oktober 2026 11:30 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden
×
×
Doctrine-WebinarNicht verpassen
Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Mi. den 14. Oktober 2026 11:30 - 12:00 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 81553/12   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2016,930
EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 81553/12 (https://dejure.org/2016,930)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04.02.2016 - 81553/12 (https://dejure.org/2016,930)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04. Februar 2016 - 81553/12 (https://dejure.org/2016,930)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,930) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    HILAL MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

    Remainder inadmissible;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 ...

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 ... (18)Zitiert selbst (28)

  • EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 2096/05

    PERALDI c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 81553/12
    The composition of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the procedures it follows are described in detail in the Court's decision Peraldi v. France ((dec.), no. 2096/05, 7 April 2009).

    Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that it has already examined the procedure followed by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and concluded that it constituted "another procedure of international investigation or settlement" for the purposes of Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention (see Peraldi v. France (dec.), no. 2096/05, 7 April 2009; Gürdeniz, cited above, § 39, and Uça v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73489/12, § 42, 30 September 2014).

  • EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 42730/05

    SAVDA v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 81553/12
    In other words, an application is considered "substantially the same" where it concerns the same persons, facts and complaints (see Savda v. Turkey, no. 42730/05, § 68, 12 June 2012, and Gürdeniz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 59715/10, § 41, 18 March 2014).
  • EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 44009/05
    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 81553/12
    In particular, the Court considered that Article 34 of the Convention had been breached where the applicant had been unable to discuss with his representative issues concerning the application before the Court without their being separated by a glass partition (see Cebotari v. Moldova, no. 35615/06, §§ 58-68, 13 November 2007); where the applicant had been unable to communicate with his representative before the Court during his treatment in hospital (see Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 140, ECHR 2008); and where the applicant's contacts with his representative before the Court had been restricted on the grounds that the representative was not a professional advocate and did not belong to any Bar association (see Zakharkin v. Russia, no. 1555/04, §§ 157-60, 10 June 2010).
  • EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

    HARKINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    S'agissant des requêtes déjà soumises à une autre instance internationale d'enquête ou de règlement, la Cour a maintes fois dit que cette disposition excluait sa compétence à l'égard de toute requête entrant dans son champ d'application (voir, par exemple, OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos c. Russie, no 14902/04, § 520, 20 septembre 2011, POA et autres c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 59253/11, § 27, 21 mai 2013, et Hilal Mammadov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 81553/12, §§ 103 et 105, 4 février 2016).
  • EGMR, 16.07.2020 - 68817/14

    YUNUSOVA AND YUNUSOV v. AZERBAIJAN

    Following Mr Bagirov's suspension from the bar, the domestic authorities stopped allowing him to meet with six of his clients who were being held in detention, including the applicants (for further details see Hilal Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 81553/12, §§ 51-57, 4 February 2016, and Rasul Jafarov, cited above, §§ 43-49).

    The submissions made by the parties are identical to those made in respect of the same complaint raised in Hilal Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 81553/12, §§ 111-14, 4 February 2016, and Rasul Jafarov, cited above, §§ 172-75.

  • EGMR, 07.07.2026 - 31908/22

    AL-NASHIRI v. LITHUANIA

    In other words, an application is considered "substantially the same" where it concerns the same persons, facts and complaints (see Gürdeniz, cited above, § 41, and Hilal Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 81553/12, § 104, 4 February 2016).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2023 - 1/16

    HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN

    In this context, "any form of pressure" includes not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or potential applicants or their family members or legal representatives, but also other improper indirect acts or communication designed to dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention complaint or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of their right of individual application (see Kurt, cited above, §§ 160 and 164; Annagi Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 2204/11, § 66, 22 October 2015; and Hilal Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 81553/12, § 116, 4 February 2016).
  • EGMR, 13.12.2018 - 66650/13

    MURSALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN and 10 other applications

    In this context, "any form of pressure" includes not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation, but also other improper indirect acts or communication designed to dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention complaint or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual application by applicants and their representatives (see Annagi Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 2204/11, § 66, 22 October 2015, and Hilal Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 81553/12, § 116, 4 February 2016).
  • EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 74389/13

    PIHONI v. ALBANIA

    Despite the fact that their statements clearly conflicted with the applicant's statement, the prosecutor in charge of the case did not order a formal face-to-face confrontation between the applicant and the police officers or even an identification parade, even though the applicant explicitly asked for one (see Chmil v. Ukraine, no. 20806/10, § 89, 29 October 2015, and Hilal Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 81553/12, § 96, 4 February 2016).
  • EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 42224/11

    [FRE]

    La Cour rappelle d'emblée qu'un grief tiré de l'article 34 de la Convention revêt un caractère procédural et que, par conséquent, il ne soulève aucune question de recevabilité au regard de la Convention (Cooke c. Autriche, no 25878/94, § 46, 8 février 2000, et Hilal Mammadov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 81553/12, § 115, 4 février 2016).
  • EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 42119/12

    HAJILI v. AZERBAIJAN

    The Court observes at the outset that the parties are in dispute about the question of whether the applicant was subjected to the use of force by the police at all (see Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 31805/06, §§ 46-48, 17 April 2012, and Hilal Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 81553/12, §§ 78-84, 4 February 2016).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 27336/17

    KILINÇLI AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE

    In determining whether its jurisdiction is excluded by virtue of this Convention provision, the Court would have to decide whether the case before it is substantially the same as a matter that has already been submitted to a parallel set of proceedings and, if that is so, whether the simultaneous proceedings may be seen as "another procedure of international investigation or settlement" within the meaning of Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention (see Hilal Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 81553/12, § 103, 4 February 2016).
  • EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 70040/13

    STANCIU v. ROMANIA

    While noting that the investigation was not necessarily promptly initiated (see, for instance, Hilal Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 81553/12, § 92, 4 February 2016), the Court however accepts that the authorities did react to the complaints of the applicant.
  • EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 21048/12

    GEDRIMAS v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR, 26.09.2024 - 959/15

    MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  • EGMR, 19.03.2020 - 22004/11

    SATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  • EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 55894/13

    YUSIV v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR - 981/15 (anhängig)

    NASIROV v. AZERBAIJAN and 4 other applications

  • EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 61239/17

    JABBAROV v. AZERBAIJAN and 8 other applications

  • EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 21759/15

    PENNINO v. ITALY

  • EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 80959/17

    PISKORSKI v. POLAND

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht