003-7305361-9961792

WyrokETPCz2022-04-07

Analiza orzeczenia

Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.

Zagadnienie prawne
Czy postępowanie karne przeciwko skarżącemu było rzetelne, biorąc pod uwagę zarzuty o podłożenie dowodów i brak możliwości ich skutecznego kwestionowania, oraz czy zajęcie akt sprawy adwokata naruszyło prawo do indywidualnej skargi?
Stan faktyczny
Skarżący, Eynulla Fatullayev, jest azerskim dziennikarzem, urodzonym w 1976 roku, mieszkającym w Baku. Był założycielem i redaktorem naczelnym gazet Gündəlik Azərbaycan i Realniy Azerbaijan. Sprawa dotyczyła zarzutów o nierzetelność postępowania karnego przeciwko niemu w związku z nielegalnym posiadaniem narkotyków, podczas gdy odbywał już karę pozbawienia wolności, która była przedmiotem wcześniejszej sprawy przed Trybunałem (Fatullayev v. Azerbejdżan, nr 40984/07).
Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał stwierdził naruszenie art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji oraz naruszenie art. 34 Konwencji. Zasądzono 4000 euro tytułem zadośćuczynienia za szkodę niemajątkową. Roszczenie skarżącego o zwrot kosztów i wydatków zostało odrzucone.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 123 (2022)   07.04.2022   Judgments and decisions of 7 April 2022   The European Court of Human Rights has today given notification in writing of six judgments1 and   decisions2:   two Chamber judgments are summarised below;   four separate press releases have been issued for Chamber judgments in the cases of Miklić   v. Croatia (application no. 41023/19), A. L. v. France (no. 13344/20), Callamand v. France   (no. 2338/20), and Landi v. Italy (no. 10929/19);   a separate press release has also been issued for one decision in the case of Povilonis v. Lithuania   (no. 81624/17);   the ten other decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments summarised below are available only in English.   Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 2) (application no. 32734/11)   The applicant, Eynulla Fatullayev, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1976 and lives in Baku.   He is a journalist and was the founder and chief editor of the newspapers Gündəlik Azərbaycan and   Realniy Azerbaijan.   The case concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant for illegal   possession of drugs while serving a prison sentence. That sentence was the subject of an earlier case   before the Court – Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 40984/07).   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant   complains that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair because he was convicted on the   basis of planted and fabricated evidence, and because he was not given an opportunity to effectively   challenge that evidence or to put forward evidence in his favour. The applicant also complains that   the seizure of his case file from the office of his lawyer was in breach of his right of individual   application under Article 34 of the Convention.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 34   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: 4,000 euros (EUR)   the Court rejected the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a judgment’s   delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five   judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention,   judgments delivered by a Committee are final.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.   Gloveli v. Georgia (no. 18952/18)   The case concerns the right of access to a court to challenge decisions relating to judicial   appointments.   The applicant, Marina Gloveli, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Tbilisi. She is   a practising lawyer in Georgia. Between 1999 and 2005 she also served as a judge in the Tbilisi Court   of Appeal. Subsequently, she participated in competitions for vacant judicial positions six times,   most recently in October 2017. All of her applications were unsuccessful.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to court) of the European Convention, she complains that she   was not able to contest the allegedly arbitrary refusal to appoint her to a judicial post in her latest   unsuccessful application.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 3,600   the Court rejected the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We would encourage journalists to send their enquiries via email.   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Neil Connolly (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Jane Swift (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   2

© Rada Europy / Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka, źródło: HUDOC (hudoc.echr.coe.int), pozyskano 16.07.2026. · Źródło