FIFTH SECTION DECISION
|
|
- Lewis Banks
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no /08 Ahmet SAVASCI against Germany The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 19 March 2013 as a Committee composed of: Boštjan M. Zupančič, President, Angelika Nußberger, Helena Jäderblom, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Secion Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 September 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Ahmet Savasci, is a Turkish national, who lives in Adana. He was represented before the Court by Mr Karl Lehner, a lawyer practising in Nürnberg. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1. Personal circumstances 2. The applicant was born in 1957 and moved to Germany in 1978 at the age of He married a German citizen in Subsequently, he received a provisional residence permit (Aufenthaltserlaubnis), which was extended on
2 2 SAVASCI v. GERMANY DECISION several occasions. In 1989 the authorities granted him an unlimited residence permit. 4. The applicant and his wife have 2 children, who were born in 1983 and The children have German nationality and grew up in Germany. 5. The applicant needs permanent medical treatment. He suffers from diabetes mellitus and glaucoma. 2. Criminal proceedings 6. On 3 September 1995 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed an offence under the Narcotic Act (Betäubungsmittelgesetz). On 7 August 1997 the Bayreuth Regional Court convicted him of drug smuggling and trafficking within a criminal organisation (bandenmäßige Einfuhr von Betäubungsmittel; bandenmäßiger Handel mit Betäubungsmitteln) and sentenced him to 9 years and 6 months of imprisonment. According to the findings of the court the applicant was responsible for the smuggling of approximately 72 kilograms of heroin to Germany which he intended to resell. The court noted that the police had secured the heroin which did not find its way into a distribution system. The court found that the applicant was a member of the criminal organisation Adena group. It considered in favour of the applicant that he had no criminal record before, that his family had debts amounting to 300,000 Deutschmarks (153,388 EURO), that he had been encouraged by an undercover agent of the police and that he had confessed to the offence and assisted the courts by unveiling other offenders. The court found on the other hand after taking evidence that the applicant had already participated in the trafficking of 18 kilograms of hashish in 1992, that he had earned his living partly by illegal activities such as smuggling diamond drills (Schmuggel von Diamantbohrern) and that he had committed the offence with considerable criminal energy. 7. On 7 August 1997 the Bayreuth Regional Court convicted the applicant s wife of aiding and abetting (Beihilfe) to 2 years of imprisonment on probation. Pursuant to the findings of the court the applicant s wife had not taken an active part in the offence, but had forwarded messages. 8. On 14 February 2002 the Bayreuth Regional Court released the applicant on probation after 6 years and 6 months of imprisonment. The court heard the applicant, took expert opinion and found that there were sufficient indications for a positive development of the applicant in the future. The court underlined that the applicant had given up his criminal intentions. 9. After his release the applicant did not commit any offences. Together with his spouse he built up a family enterprise.
3 SAVASCI v. GERMANY DECISION 3 3. Expulsion proceedings 10. On 17 March 1999 the Bayreuth District Authority (Landratsamt Bayreuth) informed the applicant of its intention to expel him and invited him to make representations. The applicant submitted in particular that his family was fully integrated in Germany and that an expulsion would be disproportional. 11. On 3 December 1999 the Bayreuth District Authority ordered the applicant s expulsion to Turkey. The applicant s administrative appeal (Widerspruch) was of no avail. 12. On 11 June 2001 the Bayreuth Administrative Court dismissed his appeal. 13. On 21 October 2002 the Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. It held that the expulsion order had a legal basis in sections 47 1 and 48 1 of the Aliens Act (Ausländergesetz). It referred to the Court s case-law and found that the expulsion order did not violate Article 8 of the Convention. In this context it underlined that the amount of heroin had been sufficient for several million injections and stated that the applicant had strong ties to Turkey and was able to speak Turkish. It considered on the one hand that the applicant had lived in Germany since 1978, that he was married with a German citizen and that he had 2 children in Germany. It found on the other hand that his wife had also been involved in the drug smuggling and had been sentenced by the courts to 2 years of imprisonment on probation. It further found that the applicant was unable to recognise the severity of the offence. This could be concluded from a letter of the applicant to the court in which he blamed other persons for the offence and from an expert opinion pursuant to which the applicant had an ambivalent attidude to the offence. The court found that the applicant was at risk of committing further offences. The court stated that his wife and his children could maintain contact with the applicant by writing, by phone and by visiting him in Turkey. It further underlined that the applicant had the opportunity to file a request to set a time-limit on the effects of his expulsion (zeitliche Befristung) pursuant to section 8 of the Alien Act. It balanced the arguments and came to the conclusion that also when considering the applicant s family situation, the expulsion was not disproportional. 14. On 15 March 2005 the Federal Administrative Court quashed the decision, because issues of the law of the European Union had to be clarified. It underlined that the applicant s expulsion was not contrary to Article 8 of the Convention. 15. On 17 August 2006 the Bavarian Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant s appeal again. Referring to the reasons in its judgment of 2002 it confirmed that the applicant s expulsion was in conformity with domestic law and Article 8 of the Convention.
4 4 SAVASCI v. GERMANY DECISION 16. On 29 June 2007 the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the further appeal on points of law. At the time of this decision both children of the applicant were adults. 17. On 15 April 2008 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit the applicant s constitutional complaint without further reasons (2 BvR 1728/07). 18. On 29 May 2008 he was expelled to Turkey. COMPLAINT 19. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his deportation to Turkey in 2008 would destroy his relationship with his children and his wife. THE LAW 20. The applicant complained that, as a result of his expulsion, he was unable to exercise his right to family life with his wife and their children. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides: 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his... family life There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society... for the prevention of disorder or crime The Court reaffirms that a State is entitled, as a matter of international law and subject to its treaty obligations, to control the entry of aliens into its territory and their residence there. The Convention does not guarantee the right of an alien to enter or to reside in a particular country and, in pursuance of their task of maintaining public order, Contracting States have the power to expel an alien convicted of criminal offences. However, their decisions in this field must, insofar as they may interfere with a right protected under paragraph 1 of Article 8, be in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society, that is to say, justified by a pressing social need and, in particular, proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see, Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no /99, 54, ECHR 2006-XII). 22. The Court notes that the applicant had established a family life in Germany with his wife and their children. It also notes that his children, who grew up in Germany and were adults at the time of the expulsion, could not be expected to move to Turkey. It accepts that there may be difficulties
5 SAVASCI v. GERMANY DECISION 5 for his wife to join him in Turkey. The expulsion therefore interfered with his right to family life. 23. The Court further notes that the expulsion had a basis in domestic law, namely in sections 47 1 and 48 1 of the Aliens Act, and that it served a legitimate aim, namely the prevention of disorder and crime. 24. It has thus to be determined whether the expulsion was necessary in a democratic society, that is to say, if it was justified by a pressing social need and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. 25. The Court reiterates the criteria it uses for such an assessment in cases where the main obstacle to expulsion is the difficulty for the spouses to stay together and for a family to live in the country of origin of the person to be expelled (compare Üner, cited above, 57-58): the nature and seriousness of the offence committed by the applicant; the length of the applicant s stay in the country from which he or she is to be expelled; the time elapsed since the offence was committed and the applicant s conduct during that period; the nationalities of the various persons concerned; the applicant s family situation, such as the length of the marriage, and other factors expressing the effectiveness of a couple s family life; whether the spouse knew about the offence at the time when he or she entered into a family relationship; whether there are children of the marriage, and if so, their age; and the seriousness of the difficulties which the spouse is likely to encounter in the country to which the applicant is to be expelled.... the best interests and well-being of the children, in particular the seriousness of the difficulties which any children of the applicant are likely to encounter in the country to which the applicant is to be expelled; and the solidity of social, cultural and family ties with the host country and with the country of destination. 26. In applying these criteria to the present case the Court has regard to the fact that the applicant had lived 30 years in Germany when the expulsion order became final (see Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, 61, ECHR 2008). During this considerable length of time the applicant had married and founded a family. It has to be recognised that the applicant s marriage had then lasted 27 years and that the applicant s expulsion resulted in separating him from his family. It has to be noted that his children had reached majority by the time the expulsion order was executed. Although the applicant s relationship with his wife and children was severely limited after his detention, the applicant s ties with Germany nevertheless remained strong during this time (compare Joseph Grant v.
6 6 SAVASCI v. GERMANY DECISION the United Kingdom, no /07, 40, 8 January 2009). The Court also takes note of the 6 years passed between his release from prison and the expulsion. 27. On the other hand, the Court observes that the applicant committed a serious criminal offence he dealt in a considerable amount of heroin, a particularly dangerous drug. The imposed sentence of more than 9 years bears testimony that the committed crime was very severe. The Court has found on several occasions that the states, in principle, have legitimate reasons to combat the distribution of drugs firmly (Maslov, cited above, 80; A.W. Khan v. the United Kingdom, no /06, 40-41, 12 January 2010; C. v. Belgium, 7 August 1996, 35; Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III). 28. The Court further notes that the applicant spent more than a third of his life in Turkey. Neither the language nor the customs were new for the applicant, who grew up and lived in Turkey until the age of 21 (see Antwi and Others v. Norway, no /10, 92, 14 February 2012: arrival at an adult age; see e contrario Butt v. Norway, no /09, 76, 4 December 2012: arrival at the age of 3 and 4). The domestic courts found that he had strong ties to Turkey and was able to speak Turkish (see Üner, cited above, 57 58). Therefore there were no insurmountable obstacles that prevented his reintegration in his country of origin (compare Miah v. United Kingdom, no /07, 25, 27 April 2010). 29. The Court further has regard to the fact that the applicant s spouse was also involved in the offence and that, as the domestic courts found, the applicant s wife and his children could maintain contact with the applicant by for example visiting him in Turkey. 30. Moreover, the Court notes the fact that the expulsion from German territory was not permanent and that the applicant has the opportunity to file a request to set a time-limit on the effects of his expulsion. 31. The Court recognises that the domestic courts reviewed the issues mentioned above in detail and with due consideration to the applicant s family situation. Against the background of the gravity of the drug crime committed by the applicant, and considering the sovereignty of member States to control and regulate the residence of aliens on their territory, the Court accepts that the German courts balanced the applicant s right to respect for his family life reasonably against the State s interest in preventing disorder and crime.
7 SAVASCI v. GERMANY DECISION Accordingly, the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible. Stephen Phillips Deputy Registrar Boštjan M. Zupančič President
SECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no 25748/15 Kemal HAMESEVIC against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16 May 2017 as a Chamber composed of: Robert Spano, President,
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION
FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 48205/13 Guy BOLEK and others against Sweden The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Chamber composed of: Mark Villiger,
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION
FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 28711/10 Walter TRAUBE against Germany The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9 September 2014 as a Committee composed of: Boštjan M. Zupančič,
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 35424/97 by Seljvije DELJIJAJ
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF UDEH v. SWITZERLAND. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT (Extracts) STRASBOURG. 16 April 2013
SECOND SECTION CASE OF UDEH v. SWITZERLAND (Application no. 12020/09) JUDGMENT (Extracts) STRASBOURG 16 April 2013 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. UDEH v. SWITZERLAND
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF KRASNIQI v. AUSTRIA. (Application no /12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 25 April 2017
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF KRASNIQI v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 41697/12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 April 2017 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF SALEM v. DENMARK. (Application no /11)
SECOND SECTION CASE OF SALEM v. DENMARK (Application no. 77036/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 December 2016 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 18668/03 by Arnold Christopher
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF C. v. IRELAND. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 1 March 2012
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF C. v. IRELAND (Application no. 24643/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 March 2012 This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. C. v. IRELAND JUDGMENT 1 In the case of
More informationTHIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE GRAND CHAMBER WHICH DELIVERED JUDGMENT IN THE CASE ON 21/09/2016
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF KHAN v. GERMANY (Application no. 38030/12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 23 April 2015 THIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE GRAND CHAMBER WHICH DELIVERED JUDGMENT IN THE CASE ON 21/09/2016 This judgment
More informationFOURTH SECTION DECISION
FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 498/10 Piotr CIOK against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 October 2012 as a Chamber composed of: Päivi Hirvelä, President,
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF HARTMAN v. SLOVENIA. (Application no /05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 18 October 2012 FINAL 18/01/2013
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF HARTMAN v. SLOVENIA (Application no. 42236/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 October 2012 FINAL 18/01/2013 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF JAKUPOVIC v. AUSTRIA. (Application no /97) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF JAKUPOVIC v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 36757/97) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 6 February
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF EREREN v. GERMANY. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 6 November 2014
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF EREREN v. GERMANY (Application no. 67522/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 6 November 2014 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF ASSEM HASSAN ALI v. DENMARK. (Application no /14) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 23 October 2018
SECOND SECTION CASE OF ASSEM HASSAN ALI v. DENMARK (Application no. 25593/14) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 23 October 2018 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 32971/08 by Phrooghosadat AYATOLLAHI and Hojy Bahroutz HOSSEINZADEH against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section),
More informationFIRST SECTION DECISION
FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 42987/09 Sergei ANDREYEV against Estonia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22 January 2013 as a Chamber composed of: Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF ROONEY v. IRELAND. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 31 October 2013
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ROONEY v. IRELAND (Application no. 32614/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 October 2013 This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. ROONEY v. IRELAND 1 In the case
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF KONSTATINOV v. THE NETHERLANDS (Application no. 16351/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
More informationTHE FACTS. A. The circumstances of the case. The facts of the case, as presented by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Giuseppe Calabrò, is an Italian national, born in 1950 and currently detained in Milan Prison. He was represented before the Court by Mr P. Sciretti, of the Milan Bar. A. The
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION
FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 75095/11 Rosel ZIERD against Germany The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 8 April 2014 as a Committee composed of: Ganna Yudkivska, President,
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF PEČENKO v. SLOVENIA. (Application no. 6387/10) JUDGMENT
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF PEČENKO v. SLOVENIA (Application no. 6387/10) JUDGMENT This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in a judgment of 29 November 2016. STRASBOURG 4 December
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF YILDIZ v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 37295/97) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 October
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION
FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 1722/10 Alem BIRAGA and others against Sweden The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 3 April 2012 as a Chamber composed of: Dean Spielmann,
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF FURCHT v. GERMANY. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 23 October 2014
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF FURCHT v. GERMANY (Application no. 54648/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 23 October 2014 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Green (Article 8 new rules) [2013] UKUT 00254 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Columbus House, Newport On: 15 April 2013 Determination Promulgated Before
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF MIHELJ v. SLOVENIA. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 15 January 2015 FINAL 15/04/2015
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF MIHELJ v. SLOVENIA (Application no. 14204/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 January 2015 FINAL 15/04/2015 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be subject
More informationUK EMN Ad Hoc Query on settlement under the European Convention on Establishment Requested by UK EMN NCP on 14 th July 2014
UK EMN Ad Hoc Query on settlement under the European Convention on Establishment 1955 Requested by UK EMN NCP on 14 th July 2014 Reply requested by 14 th August 2014 Responses from Austria, Belgium, Estonia,
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF DEMJANJUK v. GERMANY. (Application no /15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 24 January 2019
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF DEMJANJUK v. GERMANY (Application no. 24247/15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 24 January 2019 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF KAUSHAL AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA. (Application no. 1537/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 2 September 2010
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF KAUSHAL AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (Application no. 1537/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 2 September 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF M.P.E.V. AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND. (Application no. 3910/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 8 July 2014
SECOND SECTION CASE OF M.P.E.V. AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND (Application no. 3910/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 8 July 2014 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF KNEŽEVIĆ v. CROATIA. (Application no /13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 19 October 2017
FIRST SECTION CASE OF KNEŽEVIĆ v. CROATIA (Application no. 55133/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 19 October 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. KNEŽEVIĆ v. CROATIA JUDGMENT
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 43700/07 by Haroutioun HARUTIOENYAN and Others against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 17575/06 by Albert GRIGORIAN
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 26315/03 by Mohammad Yassin
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF PRESCHER v. BULGARIA. (Application no. 6767/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 June 2011 FINAL 07/09/2011
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF PRESCHER v. BULGARIA (Application no. 6767/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 June 2011 FINAL 07/09/2011 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be subject
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF ALEKSANDR NIKONENKO v. UKRAINE. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 14 November 2013 FINAL 14/02/2014
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ALEKSANDR NIKONENKO v. UKRAINE (Application no. 54755/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 14 November 2013 FINAL 14/02/2014 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF POTCOAVĂ v. ROMANIA. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 17 December 2013
THIRD SECTION CASE OF POTCOAVĂ v. ROMANIA (Application no. 27945/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 December 2013 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF STOLLENWERK v. GERMANY. (Application no. 8844/12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 September 2017
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF STOLLENWERK v. GERMANY (Application no. 8844/12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 September 2017 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 40229/98 by A.G. and Others
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF SORGUÇ v. TURKEY. (Application no /03) JUDGMENT
SECOND SECTION CASE OF SORGUÇ v. TURKEY (Application no. 17089/03) JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 21 January 2010 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court STRASBOURG 23 June 2009 FINAL 23/09/2009 This
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION
FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 32745/17 Bluma Zipa PERELMAN and Alain Michel PERELMAN against Germany The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 13 June 2017 as a Chamber composed
More informationSECOND SECTION. Communicated on 25 August Application no /14 Ahmad ASSEM HASSAN ALI against Denmark lodged on 27 March 2014
SECOND SECTION Application no. 25593/14 Ahmad ASSEM HASSAN ALI against Denmark lodged on 27 March 2014 Communicated on 25 August 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Ahmad Assem Hassan Ali, is a Jordanian
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF HOVHANNISYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 20 July 2017
FIRST SECTION CASE OF HOVHANNISYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 50520/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 20 July 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. HOVHANNISYAN v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF IBROGIMOV v. RUSSIA. (Application no /12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 15 May 2018
THIRD SECTION CASE OF IBROGIMOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 32248/12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 May 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. IBROGIMOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 1
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF TANKO TODOROV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /99)
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF TANKO TODOROV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 51562/99) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 9 November 2006 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF RAMISHVILI v. GEORGIA. (Application no /08)
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF RAMISHVILI v. GEORGIA (Application no. 48099/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 May 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. RAMISHVILI v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 45073/07 by Aurelijus BERŽINIS against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 December 2011 as a Committee composed of: Dragoljub
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF ZAVORIN v. RUSSIA. (Application no /11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 15 January 2015
FIRST SECTION CASE OF ZAVORIN v. RUSSIA (Application no. 42080/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 January 2015 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. ZAVORIN v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 1
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 37187/03 and 18577/08 Iaroslav SARUPICI against the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine and Anatolie GANEA and Aurelia GHERSCOVICI against the Republic of Moldova The
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF ADIYAMAN v. TURKEY. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 9 January 2018
SECOND SECTION CASE OF ADIYAMAN v. TURKEY (Application no. 24211/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 9 January 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. ADIYAMAN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 16472/04 by Ruslan Anatoliyovych ULYANOV against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 October 2010
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY. The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 2 December 1986, the following members being present:
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 2 December 1986, the following members being present: MM. C. A. NØRGAARD E. BUSUTTIL G. JÖRUNDSSON G. TENEKIDES S.
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 25 July 2002 *
JUDGMENT OF 25. 7. 2002 CASE C-459/99 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 25 July 2002 * In Case C-459/99, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Conseil d'état (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber) 4 October 2007 *
JUDGMENT OF 4. 10. 2007 CASE C-349/06 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber) 4 October 2007 * In Case C-349/06, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF ÖNER AND TÜRK v. TURKEY. (Application no /12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 31 March 2015 FINAL 30/06/2015
SECOND SECTION CASE OF ÖNER AND TÜRK v. TURKEY (Application no. 51962/12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 March 2015 FINAL 30/06/2015 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF U.N. v. RUSSIA. (Application no /15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 26 July 2016
THIRD SECTION CASE OF U.N. v. RUSSIA (Application no. 14348/15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 26 July 2016 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF CZARNOWSKI v. POLAND. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF CZARNOWSKI v. POLAND (Application no. 28586/03) JUDGMENT This version was
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 41226/98 by I.M. against the
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF BENJAMIN & WILSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF BENJAMIN & WILSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 28212/95) JUDGMENT
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 40772/98 by Anna PANČENKO against Latvia The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 28 October 1999 as a Chamber composed
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF Y.F. v. TURKEY (Application no. 24209/94) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 22 July 2003
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF POPPE v. THE NETHERLANDS. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF POPPE v. THE NETHERLANDS (Application no. 32271/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /91 by M.T.J. against Denmark
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 19011/91 by M.T.J. against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 31 March 1993, the following members being present:
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 56588/07 by Robert STAPLETON against Ireland The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 4 May 2010 as a Chamber composed
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF AHMET DURAN v. TURKEY. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 28 August 2012 FINAL 28/11/2012
SECOND SECTION CASE OF AHMET DURAN v. TURKEY (Application no. 37552/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 28 August 2012 FINAL 28/11/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF T.H. v. IRELAND. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 8 December 2011
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF T.H. v. IRELAND (Application no. 37868/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 8 December 2011 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. T.H. v. IRELAND JUDGMENT 1 In the
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF KARAOĞLAN v. TURKEY. (Application no /00) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF KARAOĞLAN v. TURKEY (Application no. 60161/00) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 October
More informationDelivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
In the case of K. v. Austria*, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention")**
More informationFIRST SECTION DECISION
FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 13630/16 M.R. and Others against Finland The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 24 May 2016 as a Chamber composed of: Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF LIU v. RUSSIA (No. 2) (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 26 July 2011
FIRST SECTION CASE OF LIU v. RUSSIA (No. 2) (Application no. 29157/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 26 July 2011 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 51428/10 A.M.E. against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13 January 2015 as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall,
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF SADOVYAK v. UKRAINE. (Application no /14)
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF SADOVYAK v. UKRAINE (Application no. 17365/14) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 May 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. SADOVYAK v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT 1
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF EL GHATET v. SWITZERLAND. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 8 November 2016
THIRD SECTION CASE OF EL GHATET v. SWITZERLAND (Application no. 56971/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 8 November 2016 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFORMER FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF ŠUMBERA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC. (Application no /09)
FORMER FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ŠUMBERA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC (Application no. 44410/09) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction Striking out) STRASBOURG 11 June 2015 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial
More informationSmith (paragraph 391(a) revocation of deportation order) [2017] UKUT 00166(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CANAVAN.
Smith (paragraph 391(a) revocation of deportation order) [2017] UKUT 00166(IAC) Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 11 January 2017 Decision Promulgated
More informationJUDGMENT. Norris (Appellant) v Government of United States of America (Respondent)
Hilary Term [2010] UKSC 9 On appeal from: [2009] EWHC 995 (Admin) JUDGMENT Norris (Appellant) v Government of United States of America (Respondent) before Lord Phillips, President Lord Hope, Deputy President
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 41092/06 by Susanne MATTENKLOTT
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF CUŠKO v. LATVIA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 December 2017
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF CUŠKO v. LATVIA (Application no. 32163/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 December 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. CUŠKO v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 1 In the
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no 20159/16 F.M. and Others against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 September 2016 as a committee composed of: Paul Lemmens,
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF KAROUSSIOTIS v. PORTUGAL. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT [Extracts] STRASBOURG. 1 February 2011 FINAL 01/05/2011
SECOND SECTION CASE OF KAROUSSIOTIS v. PORTUGAL (Application no. 23205/08) JUDGMENT [Extracts] STRASBOURG 1 February 2011 FINAL 01/05/2011 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 4539/11 by Nkechi Clareth AMEH and Others against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 13205/07 by Fatoumata Binta DIALLO against Sweden The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5 January 2010 as a Chamber
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF YANKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA. (Application no. 4570/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 23 September 2010
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF YANKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (Application no. 4570/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 23 September 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF BORISENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA. (Applications nos /09, 58052/09, 49397/10, 41901/11, 19251/13 and 13382/14) JUDGMENT
THIRD SECTION CASE OF BORISENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 18682/09, 58052/09, 49397/10, 41901/11, 19251/13 and 13382/14) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 24 November 2016 This judgment is final but it
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF DORIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA. (Application no /13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 November 2017
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF DORIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA (Application no. 68811/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 November 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. DORIĆ v. BOSNIA
More informationFOURTH SECTION. (Application no /95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 12 November 2002 FI AL 12/02/2003
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF PŁOSKI v. POLA D (Application no. 26761/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 12 November 2002 FI AL 12/02/2003 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF PŁOSKI v. POLAND. (Application no /95) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF PŁOSKI v. POLAND (Application no. 26761/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 12 November
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF G.B. AND R.B. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 18 December 2012 FINAL 18/03/2013
THIRD SECTION CASE OF G.B. AND R.B. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application no. 16761/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 December 2012 FINAL 18/03/2013 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 38986/97 by P. W. against Denmark
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION. CASE OF KAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF KAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (Application no. 58756/00) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF SCHOLER v. GERMANY. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 18 December 2014
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF SCHOLER v. GERMANY (Application no. 14212/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 December 2014 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF GISZCZAK v. POLAND. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 29 November 2011 FINAL 29/02/2012
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF GISZCZAK v. POLAND (Application no. 40195/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 29 November 2011 FINAL 29/02/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF SHMUSHKOVYCH v. UKRAINE. (Application no. 3276/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 14 November 2013
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF SHMUSHKOVYCH v. UKRAINE (Application no. 3276/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 14 November 2013 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationExplanatory Report to the Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
European Treaty Series - No. 117 Explanatory Report to the Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Strasbourg, 22.XI.1984 Introduction l. Protocol No.
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF OKPISZ v. GERMANY. (Application no /00) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF OKPISZ v. GERMANY (Application no. 59140/00) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 October
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF LAGERBLOM v. SWEDEN. (Application no /95) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF LAGERBLOM v. SWEDEN (Application no. 26891/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 14 January
More informationCONSTANTIN AND STOIAN v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT 1
THIRD SECTION CASE OF CONSTANTIN AND STOIAN v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 23782/06 and 46629/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 29 September 2009 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF KULINSKI AND SABEV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 21 July 2016
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF KULINSKI AND SABEV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 63849/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 21 July 2016 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 23052/04 by August KOLK Application
More information