Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAGIROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BAGIROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• NJW 2021, 139

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 81024/12

  Accordingly, many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague, and whose interpretation and application are questions of practice (see The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 49, Series A no. 30, and Med?¾lis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 19.04.2018 - 6477/08

  HAJIBEYLI AND ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 81024/12

  Such an interference will constitute a breach of Article 10 unless it was "prescribed by law", pursued one or more legitimate aims under paragraph 2, and was "necessary in a democratic society" for the achievement of those aims (see Hajibeyli and Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, nos. 6477/08 and 10414/08, § 54, 19 April 2018).
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 81024/12

  Moreover, in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the Court must look at the impugned interference in the light of the case as a whole, including the content of the remarks in question and the context in which the applicant made them, bearing in mind the special status of lawyers in the administration of justice as intermediaries between the public and the courts (see Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, §§ 44-45, ECHR 2002-II).

• EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 16358/18

  ANGERJÄRV AND GREINOMAN v. ESTONIA

  Therefore, the Court considers that the general principles concerning the applicability of Article 8 of the Convention laid down in Denisov are also relevant to the present case (see Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 81024/12 and 28198/15, § 87, 25 June 2020, where the same general principles were applied in circumstances involving the suspension from practice and subsequent disbarment of a lawyer, and see also, mutatis mutandis, Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine, nos.

  The majority here lose sight of the crucial role of lawyers in the justice system and, more broadly, in a democratic society as a whole (see Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 81024/12 and 28198/15, § 99, 25 June 2020).

• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 8964/18

  AXEL SPRINGER SE v. GERMANY

  An interference will be considered "necessary in a democratic society" for a legitimate aim if it answers a "pressing social need" and, in particular, if it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and if the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient" (see, for example, Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 81024/12 and 28198/15, § 98, 25 June 2020, and M.P. v. Finland, no. 36487/12, § 51, 15 December 2016).
• EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20

  JUSZCZYSZYN v. POLAND

  81024/12 and 28198/15, 25 June 2020).

 
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 72611/14

  TAGIYEVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  81024/12 and 28198/15, § 120, 25 June 2020).
• EGMR, 11.05.2023 - 18287/18

  SÀRL GATOR c. MONACO

  Application au cas d'espèce 53. La Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà eu l'occasion d'affirmer, dans des affaires concernant des propos tenus par des avocats représentant leurs clients dans l'enceinte du prétoire, que l'« égalité des armes'et d'autres considérations d'équité militent en faveur d'un échange de vues libre, voire énergique, entre les parties (voir, entre autres, Nikula c. Finlande, no 31611/96, § 49, CEDH 2002-II, Morice, précité, § 137, et Bagirov c. Azerbaïdjan, nos 81024/12 et 28198/15, § 80, 25 juin 2020).
• EGMR, 13.07.2023 - 1/16

  EMIN HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal question raised by the case, and that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014; Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 81024/12 and 28198/15, § 106, 25 June 2020; and Ayyubzade v. Azerbaijan, no. 6180/15, § 60, 2 March 2023).
• EGMR, 23.03.2023 - 5420/16

  ROGALSKI v. POLAND

  81024/12 and 28198/15, § 75, 25 June 2020; and contrast Raichinov v. Bulgaria, no. 47579/99, § 45, 20 April 2006).