Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NAMAZLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  NAMAZLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (20)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTER OF LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2024 - 8826/20

  Rn. 56 Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present application, and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the above-mentioned complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and Azer Ahmadov, cited above, § 79).
• EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56720/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2024 - 8826/20

  It is essential to have clear, detailed rules setting out safeguards against possible abuse or arbitrariness (see, mutatis mutandis, Sorvisto v. Finland, no. 19348/04, § 118, 13 January 2009, and Heino v. Finland, no. 56720/09, § 43, 15 February 2011).
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 19348/04

  Sorvisto ./. Finnland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2024 - 8826/20

  It is essential to have clear, detailed rules setting out safeguards against possible abuse or arbitrariness (see, mutatis mutandis, Sorvisto v. Finland, no. 19348/04, § 118, 13 January 2009, and Heino v. Finland, no. 56720/09, § 43, 15 February 2011).

• EGMR, 12.03.2020 - 18498/15

  ASLAN ISMAYILOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2024 - 8826/20

  It follows that this part of the claim must be rejected (see Aslan Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 18498/15, § 63, 12 March 2020).
• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 12323/11

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2024 - 8826/20

  Rn. 34 The Court refers to the general principles established in its case-law as set out in Michaud v. France (no. 12323/11, §§ 117-19, ECHR 2012) and Laurent v. France (no. 28798/13, §§ 35 and 44, 24 May 2018), which are equally pertinent to the present case.
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2024 - 8826/20

  Its routine scrutiny, particularly by individuals or authorities who may have a direct interest in the subject matter contained therein, is not in keeping with the principles of confidentiality and professional privilege attaching to relations between a lawyer and his client (see Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, §§ 47-48, Series A no. 233, and Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, § 239, 17 April 2012).
• EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 11236/09

  ALTAY v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2024 - 8826/20

  On that account, however, it is vital to provide a strict framework for such measures, since lawyers occupy a vital position in the administration of justice and can, by virtue of their role as intermediary between litigants and the courts, be described as officers of the law (see André and Another v. France, no. 18603/03, § 42, 24 July 2008, and Altay v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 11236/09, § 56, 9 April 2019).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2024 - 8826/20

  Its routine scrutiny, particularly by individuals or authorities who may have a direct interest in the subject matter contained therein, is not in keeping with the principles of confidentiality and professional privilege attaching to relations between a lawyer and his client (see Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, §§ 47-48, Series A no. 233, and Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, § 239, 17 April 2012).
• EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 11264/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2024 - 8826/20

  Rn. 40 The Court reiterates that any measure - if it is no different from a search in its manner of execution and its practical effects - amounts, regardless of its characterisation under domestic law, to an interference with an applicant's rights under Article 8 of the Convention (see Avanesyan v. Russia, no. 41152/06, § 39, 18 September 2014, and Kruglov and Others v. Russia, nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, § 123, 4 February 2020).
• EGMR, 24.05.2018 - 28798/13

  ORDRE DES AVOCATS DE BREST ET LAURENT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2024 - 8826/20

  Rn. 34 The Court refers to the general principles established in its case-law as set out in Michaud v. France (no. 12323/11, §§ 117-19, ECHR 2012) and Laurent v. France (no. 28798/13, §§ 35 and 44, 24 May 2018), which are equally pertinent to the present case.
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 23145/93

  ELÇI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EKMR, 30.06.1997 - 25091/94

  SAHiN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 5386/10

  ZAYIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 41152/06

  AVANESYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 61064/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.07.2020 - 68817/14

  YUNUSOVA AND YUNUSOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 54588/13

  GULIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 18.11.2021 - 54563/11

  PAR v. AZERBAIJAN and 1 other application
• EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 3409/10

  AHMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 10.03.2022 - 41326/17

  SHENTURK v. AZERBAIJAN

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.10.2026 - 36384/22

  BAYBASiN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  For example, to ensure that lawyer-client rights under the Convention are effectively enjoyed, the prison authorities are generally expected to distinguish between the different categories of persons with whom the prisoners correspond (see, among many authorities, Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, §§ 46-48, Series A no. 233; Namazli v. Azerbaijan, no. 8826/20, §§ 47 and 51, 20 June 2024; and Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 15197/02, § 44, 22 May 2008).
• EGMR, 18.03.2025 - 36057/18

  MEHDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The practical interpretation and application of the law by the domestic courts must give individuals protection against arbitrary interference (see Guliyev, cited above, § 51, and Namazli v. Azerbaijan, no. 8826/20, § 45, 20 June 2024).
• EGMR, 23.01.2025 - 31175/14

  REZNIK v. UKRAINE

  Rn. 100 Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application, and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the above-mentioned complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014 ; and Namazli v. Azerbaijan, no. 8826/20, § 56, 20 June 2024).
• EGMR, 08.07.2025 - 29041/14

  ZEYNALLI AND SADIGOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Rn. 12 The relevant general principles have been summarised in, inter alia, Michaud v. France (no. 12323/11, §§ 117-19, ECHR 2012); Altay v. Turkey (no. 2) (no. 11236/09, §§ 47-52, 9 April 2019); and Namazli v. Azerbaijan (no. 8826/20, §§ 34-37, 20 June 2024).