Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 17, Art. 18 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15

  While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, § 46, Series A no. 140; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 94, ECHR 2006-IX; and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 170, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 140/10

  Belgien wegen Auslieferung von Ex-Fußballprofi verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15

  The Court reiterates that the assessment of an applicant's obligation to exhaust domestic remedies is normally carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with it (see, for example, Trabelsi v. Belgium, no. 140/10, § 89, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15

  While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, § 46, Series A no. 140; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 94, ECHR 2006-IX; and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 170, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15

  Taking those circumstances into account and having further regard to the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the complaint under Article 18 in the present case (compare Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15

  The Court reiterates further that, in view of the principle that the Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37, and Karajanov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 2229/15, § 51, 6 April 2017), the right to a fair trial cannot be seen as effective unless the requests and observations of the parties are truly "heard", that is to say, properly examined by the tribunal (see Dulaurans v. France, no. 34553/97, § 33, 21 March 2000; Ajdaric, cited above, § 33; and Carmel Saliba v. Malta, no. 24221/13, § 65, 29 November 2016).
• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  DE TOMMASO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15

  While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, § 46, Series A no. 140; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 94, ECHR 2006-IX; and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 170, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15

  The reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Jurica v. Croatia, no. 30376/13, § 76, 2 May 2017).
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  MOREIRA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15

  The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999-I, and Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 84, 11 July 2017).
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15

  Whilst acknowledging the domestic judicial authorities" prerogative to assess the evidence and decide what is relevant and admissible, the Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 places the "tribunal" under a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 59, Series A no. 288, and Carmel Saliba, cited above, § 64).
• EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06

  McFARLANE v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15

  "Charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1, may be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", a definition that also corresponds to the test whether "the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected" (see, among many other authorities, McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 143, 10 September 2010, and O'Neill and Lauchlan v. the United Kingdom, no. 41516/10 and 75702/13, § 82, 28 June 2016).
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 30376/13

  JURICA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 44363/02

  RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR - 75702/13 (anhängig)

  LAUCHLAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 32734/11

  FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  Finally, when the trial court refused to order an expert examination of the applicant's hair and nails and stated that there were no technical means in the country to conduct the requested tests, it did not explain the reasons why that situation should not lead to the application of the in dubio pro reo principle which requires that the benefit of any doubt about the reliability of existing evidence should be given to the defendant (see, mutatis mutandis, Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 919/15, § 232, 16 November 2017).

  Having regard to the submissions of the parties and the Court's findings under Article 6 of the Convention (see, in particular, paragraphs 101-103 above), the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 18 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 6 and 10 (compare Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 919/15, § 262, 16 November 2017).

• EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

  WALESA v. POLAND

  The question whether Article 6 of the Convention contains any express or implied restrictions which may form the subject of the Court's examination under Article 18 of the Convention remains open (see Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 919/15, § 261, 16 November 2017, with references to Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 12.03.2024 - 24127/17

  IBRAHIM v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Azerbaijan, its practice concerning complaints relating to the right to a reasoned judgment, equality of arms and adversarial proceedings (see, for example, Huseyn and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 35485/05 and 3 others, §§ 175 and 198-203, 26 July 2011; Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 919/15, §§ 205-10, 16 November 2017; Zayidov v. Azerbaijan (no. 3), no. 60824/08, §§ 87-110, 19 January 2023; and Dursun Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 20216/14, §§ 115-45, 27 April 2023).

 
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 4854/10

  HAJIZADE AND ABDULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In such circumstances, the Court considers that the domestic courts' conclusion that the witnesses who had testified in the applicants' favour were untruthful and biased towards the applicants was made without sufficient reasons and without due regard to their individual situations (compare Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 919/15, § 227, 16 November 2017).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  NEVZLIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court notes that the question of whether Article 6 contains any express or implied restrictions which may form the subject of the Court's examination under Article 18 remains open in the Court's case-law (see Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 919/15, § 261, 16 November 2017, with further references).
• EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 14604/08

  MUSHFIG MAMMADOV ET AUTRES c. AZERBAÏDJAN

  Conformément à l'article 60 du règlement de la Cour, tout requérant qui sollicite une satisfaction équitable doit soumettre par écrit ses prétentions, chiffrées et ventilées par rubrique et accompagnées des justificatifs pertinents, faute de quoi la chambre peut rejeter tout ou partie de la demande (Malik Babayev c. Azerbaïdjan, no 30500/11, § 97, 1er juin 2017, et Ilgar Mammadov c. Azerbaïdjan (no 2), no 919/15, § 272, 16 novembre 2017).
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 2059/16

  HASANOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  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 - 3183/16 (anhängig)

  OMAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN and 3 other applications

  In the present application, does Article 18 apply in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention (see Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 919/15, § 261, 16 November 2017)? If so, were the restrictions imposed by the State on the applicant, purportedly pursuant to Article 6 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?.
• EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 34167/15

  KOLOMPAR v. SERBIA

  The national courts thus failed to observe two basic requirements of criminal justice: (i) that it is the prosecution that has to prove a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and (ii) the principle of in dubio pro reo which requires that the benefit of any doubt about the reliability of evidence should be given to the defendant and not the prosecution (see, for example and mutatis mutandis, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, §§ 77 and 89, Series A no. 146; Melich and Beck v. the Czech Republic, no. 35450/04, §§ 49 and 55, 24 July 2008; Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 32734/11, § 99, 7 April 2022; and Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 919/15, § 232, 16 November 2017).
• EGMR - 382/24 (anhängig)

  KHAZARADZE AND JAPARIDZE v. GEORGIA and 1 other application

  Having regard to the nature of Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention, in particular the question of the existence of either explicit or implied restrictions within those provisions, can the scope of Article 18 be extended to cover either of them (Ilgar Mammadov (no. 2), no. 919/15, § 261)?.
• EGMR - 51229/22 (anhängig)

  KALANDADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR - 2170/24 (anhängig)

  KAVALA c. TÜRKIYE (n° 2)
• EGMR - 82482/17 (anhängig)

  SAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 24219/16

  KARIMOV ET AUTRES c. AZERBAÏDJAN