THIRD SECTION DECISION
|
|
- Brett Dixon
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no /13 Mohamed AHACHAK against the Netherlands and 3 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13 November 2014 as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall, President, Luis López Guerra, Ján Šikuta, Dragoljub Popović, Johannes Silvis, Valeriu Griţco, Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications, lodged on 11 June 2013, 13 August 2013, 8 November 2013 and 24 October 2013 respectively; Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. A. Particular circumstances of the cases 1. Mr Mohamed Ahachak 2. Mr Mohamed Ahachak is a Moroccan national born in He is currently detained in a custodial clinic in Poortugaal (near Rotterdam), the Netherlands. He was represented by Mr J.C. de Goeij, a lawyer practising in Alkmaar.
2 2 AHACHAK v. THE NETHERLANDS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION 3. On various dates in August and September 2002 Mr Ahachak forced shopkeepers at knifepoint to hand him money. 4. On 16 October 2003 the Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) of The Hague convicted Mr Ahachak on appeal of various counts of robbery with the threat of violence. It sentenced him to two years imprisonment and ordered him placed at the disposal of the Government (terbeschikkingstelling, hereafter TBS order ) with confinement in a custodial clinic (bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege). The judgment included the following reasoning: These serious crimes, committed with the threat of violence, have had psychological consequences for the victims in addition to the pecuniary damage caused. Moreover, such crimes cause disquiet in society and increase feelings of insecurity. 5. After an initial four-year period which ended no later than 2008, the TBS order was extended several more times. In 2012 it came up for biennial review once more (Article 38d 2 of the Criminal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht)). 6. On 10 July 2012 the Regional Court (rechtbank) of The Hague gave a decision extending the TBS order for a further two years. 7. Mr Ahachak appealed to the Arnhem Court of Appeal, which held a hearing on 17 December Mr Ahachak s counsel, relying on this Court s judgment in the case of Van der Velden v. the Netherlands, no /10, 31 July 2012, argued that since the judgment of 16 October 2003 made no mention of an offence directed against, or endangering, the bodily inviolability of one or more persons (Article of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering)), the duration of the TBS order could be no more than four years (Article 38e 1 of the Criminal Code). 8. The Arnhem Court of Appeal gave its decision on 3 January It extended the TBS order by a further two years, reasoning as follows: Contrary to the argument made by counsel, the Court of Appeal takes the view that the TBS order is not bound to any maximum duration, since... in view of the conviction, the qualification and the reasoning on which the imposition of the measure is based, considered in context (in onderling verband en samenhang bezien), the offences in question were directed against, or endangered, the bodily inviolability of one or more persons. 2. Mr Stephanus Maria Anna Hendrikus Janssen 9. Mr Stephanus Maria Anna Hendrikus Janssen is a Netherlands national born in He is currently detained in a custodial clinic in Venray. He was represented by Mr D.W.H.M. Wolters, a lawyer practising in Hoofddorp. 10. On 5 March 2002 Mr Janssen started a fire in a lavatory in an office building by setting a towel alight with a burning cigarette.
3 AHACHAK v. THE NETHERLANDS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION On 24 September 2002 the Roermond Regional Court convicted Mr Janssen of arson endangering property and life. It sentenced him to seven months imprisonment and imposed a TBS order with confinement in a custodial clinic. The judgment included the following reasoning: In setting the sentence, the Regional Court has considered, in particular, the seriousness of the fact found proven in relation to other criminal offences, in addition to the interest of enforcing compliance with standards and the circumstance that the accused... has been convicted before. In addition, the Regional Court has considered the dangerousness (gevaarzettend karakter) of the fact found proven and the social unrest to which it has contributed. and The safety of others and the general safety of persons and goods require the imposition of a TBS order. and Since the safety of others than the accused and the general safety of persons and goods so require, the accused shall be confined in a custodial clinic. 12. After an initial four-year period which ended no later than 2006, the TBS order was extended several more times. In 2012 it came up for biennial review once more. 13. On 12 October 2012 the Roermond Regional Court held a hearing. Mr Janssen s counsel argued, among other things, that the duration of the TBS order was limited in time to four years since it had not been imposed for an offence directed against, or endangering, the bodily inviolability of one or more persons. 14. The Regional Court gave a decision on 26 October 2012 extending the TBS order for a further two years. Its reasoning included the following: The Regional Court takes the view that the conviction and the qualification, together with the reasons given in sentencing, which refers to the dangerousness of the fact found proven and the social unrest to which it has contributed, unambiguously shows that the crime in question is of the type referred to in Article of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 15. On 21 February 2013 the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal, sitting in Arnhem (which by this time had succeeded the Arnhem Court of Appeal), having held a hearing on 7 February 2013, confirmed the decision of the Regional Court including its reasoning. 3. Mr Charles Ferdinand van Akerlaken 16. Mr Charles Ferdinand van Akerlaken is a Netherlands national born in He is currently detained in a custodial clinic in Venray. He was represented before the Court by Ms D.N. de Jonge and Mr T. de Bont, lawyers practising in Amsterdam.
4 4 AHACHAK v. THE NETHERLANDS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION 17. In April 2001 Mr van Akerlaken induced the staff of a dispensing chemist s to hand over medicine by banging his fist on the counter and threatening murder and arson. 18. On 7 July 2002 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal convicted Mr van Akerlaken on appeal of extortion and threatening lethal violence and arson. It sentenced him to 23 weeks imprisonment and imposed a TBS order with confinement in a custodial clinic. Its reasoning included the following: By his behaviour and actions, the accused has caused the persons involved great fear. The facts set out above cause serious feelings of unrest and insecurity in society in general and retail staff in particular. Moreover, extortion causes nuisance and damage to victims. 19. After an initial four-year period which ended no later than 2007, the TBS order was extended several more times. In 2012 it came up for biennial review once more. 20. On 7 December 2012 the Amsterdam Regional Court gave a decision finding that the sentencing judgment failed to make mention of an offence directed against, or endangering, the bodily inviolability of one or more persons as referred to in Article of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the light of the Van der Velden v. the Netherlands judgment of this Court, the TBS order therefore could not be extended. 21. The public prosecutor appealed to the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal. 22. Having held a hearing on 11 April 2013, the Court of Appeal gave a decision on 25 April 2013 extending the TBS order for a further year. Its reasoning included the following: The Court of Appeal finds that the [applicant] was convicted by the judgment of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal of 7 October 2002 of: extortion; threatening lethal violence and arson. In view of the conviction, the qualification and the reasoning on which the sentence and the measure [i.e. the TBS order] is grounded, viewed in context, it is implicit in the judgment that the TBS order was given in connection with a crime of violence within the meaning of Article 38e 1 of the Criminal Code, namely: extortion, involving non-verbal action by the [applicant] (banging a counter forcefully with his fist), with the intention to add force to the verbal threat, such action by its nature being aggressive towards the person so threatened. It cannot therefore be said that the possibility of an extension of the [TBS order] beyond four years could not reasonably be foreseen by [the applicant]. Unlike the Regional Court, the Court of Appeal therefore takes the view that the TBS order in this case is not limited in duration.
5 AHACHAK v. THE NETHERLANDS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION 5 4. Ms Mulki Mohamed Wehelie 23. Ms Mulki Mohamed Wehelie is a Somali national born in She is currently detained in a custodial clinic in Balkbrug. She was represented by Mr I. Vreeken, a lawyer practising in Zutphen. 24. In September 1997 Ms Wehelie removed her five-year-old son, who had been taken into public care, from the supervision of the child-care authorities by threatening social workers and a police officer with an object that had the appearance of a firearm but later turned out to be a gas alarm pistol. 25. On 21 October 1999 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal convicted Ms Wehelie on appeal of threatening the social workers and the police officer with a crime directed against their lives and removing a minor from the supervision of the person to whom the minor had been lawfully entrusted. It imposed a TBS order with confinement in a custodial clinic without an additional penal sentence. The judgment referred to, among other things, the threatening and frightening nature of the facts found proven. It included the following reasoning: In view of the above findings, the Court of Appeal considers that the safety of others requires the imposition of a TBS order. Moreover, the safety of others requires the accused to be confined in a custodial clinic. 26. After an initial four-year period which ended no later than 2003, the TBS order was extended several more times. 27. On 3 March 2011 the Deputy Minister of Security and Justice (Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Jusititie) decided to impose an exclusion order (ongewenstverklaring) on Ms Wehelie pursuant to the Aliens Act 2000 (Vreemdelingenwet 2000). 28. In 2012 the TBS order came up for biennial review once more. 29. On 26 November 2012 the Utrecht Regional Court gave a decision finding that the sentencing judgment failed to make mention of an offence directed against, or endangering, the bodily inviolability of one or more persons as referred to in Article of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the light of the Van der Velden v. the Netherlands judgment of this Court, the TBS order therefore could not be extended. 30. The public prosecutor (officier van justitie) appealed to the Arnhem- Leeuwarden Court of Appeal. 31. Having held a hearing on 14 February 2013, that Court of Appeal, sitting in Arnhem, gave a decision on 7 March Overturning the decision of the Regional Court, it found in view of the reference in the sentencing judgment to the threatening and frightening nature of the facts found proven that the offence of which Ms Wehelie had been convicted was one directed against, or endangering, the bodily inviolability of one or more persons so that the TBS order was not limited in duration and could reasonably be expected to be extended beyond four years. However, it
6 6 AHACHAK v. THE NETHERLANDS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION adjourned the case in order to seek certain information not relevant to the complaint before the Court from the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (Immigratie- en naturalisatiedienst) and the Ministry of Security and Justice (Ministerie van veiligheid en justitie). 32. On 4 July 2013, having obtained the information required and having held a fresh hearing in the meantime, the Court of Appeal gave a decision extending the TBS order by one year. 33. Ms Wehelie s TBS order has since been extended for a further period of one year, by a decision given on 31 October 2013 by the Central Netherlands Regional Court (rechtbank Midden-Nederland, successor to the Utrecht Regional Court). B. Relevant domestic law and practice 1. The Criminal Code 34. As relevant to the case, the Criminal Code provides as follows: Article 37a 1. The court may impose a TBS order on a suspect whose mental faculties were inadequately developed or pathologically disturbed at the time of the commission of the offence if: 1º the offence he has committed is one which, according to its statutory definition, renders offenders liable to a term of imprisonment of four years or more,... and 2º the said measure is necessary in the interests of the safety of others or the general safety of persons or goods In giving an order under paragraph 1, the court shall take account of the statements contained in the other opinions and reports made concerning the suspect s personality, and shall take account of the seriousness of the offence committed and the number of previous convictions for indictable offences. 35. All applicants were found guilty of offences carrying a maximum sentence of four years or more. Article 37b 1. The court may order that a person who is subject to a TBS order shall be confined in a custodial clinic if this is necessary in the interests of the safety of others or the general safety of persons or goods.... Article 38d 1. A TBS order shall remain in force for a period of two years, counting from the day on which the judgment imposing it has become final. 2. Except as provided in Article 38e..., the duration of the TBS order can be extended, on the application of the public prosecution service (openbaar ministerie), for either one year or two years at a time, if the safety of others or the general safety
7 AHACHAK v. THE NETHERLANDS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION 7 of persons or goods requires such extension. A second extension is possible only when an order as mentioned in Article 37b... has been given. Article 38e 1. The total duration of the TBS order shall not exceed a four-year period, unless the TBS order is imposed in connection with an indictable offence that is directed against, or endangers, the bodily inviolability of one or more persons. 2. If the total duration of the TBS order is not limited in time, the duration of the TBS order can be extended periodically, if the safety of others or the general safety of persons requires such extension. 2. The Code of Criminal Procedure 36. As relevant to the case, the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows:... Article If a TBS order with an order for confinement in a custodial clinic has been imposed in connection with an indictable offence directed against, or endangering, the bodily inviolability of one or more persons, the judgment shall so indicate, giving reasons. 8. All on pain of nullity. COMPLAINTS 37. The applicants all complained under Article 5 1 of the Convention about the prolongation of their TBS orders. In their submission the TBS orders were limited in duration pursuant to Article 38e 1 of the Criminal Code given that the sentencing judgments did not, as required by Article of the Code of Criminal Procedure, specify that they had been convicted of indictable offences directed against, or endangering, the bodily inviolability of one or more persons. 38. The applicant Ms Wehelie complained in addition of her detention under Article 7 1 of the Convention and of the modalities of her detention under Article 3 of the Convention.
8 8 AHACHAK v. THE NETHERLANDS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION THE LAW A. Joinder of the applications 39. The Court finds that, given the common legal background of the applications and the similarity of the facts on which they are based, it is appropriate to examine them in a single decision. It will therefore join the applications. B. Complaints under Article 5 1 of the Convention 40. The applicants all complain that the extension of their TBS orders beyond an initial period of four years violates domestic law, and consequently is contrary to Article 5 1 of the Convention, which in its relevant part provides as follows: 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;... (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; Article 35 1 of the Convention provides as follows: The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken. 42. According to the standing case-law of the Court and the Commission, the six-month time-limit starts to run on the day following delivery of the final domestic decision and expires six calendar months later (see, among many other authorities, Sabri Güneş v. Turkey [GC], no /06, 44, 29 June 2012, with further references). 43. The final decision, for purposes of Article 35 1 of the Convention, is the domestic decision which finally determines the applicant s position in relation to the matter complained of (see, among many other authorities, Demicoli v. Malta, 27 August 1991, 27, Series A no. 210; Aerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, 41, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V; and Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no /99, Commission decision of 7 June 2001). 44. In Van der Velden (cited above, 35-36) the Court found a violation of Article 5 1 on the ground that the extension of the TBS order with confinement in a custodial clinic after the end of the fourth year of its duration had not been in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law.
9 AHACHAK v. THE NETHERLANDS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION 9 It appeared that the domestic court granting extension beyond the four-year period in that case had thereby deviated from the final judgment of the convicting domestic court. The Court observes that the application in that case was lodged within six months from the decision which first extended the order beyond four years. 45. The Court finds that the final decision relevant to the applicants complaints was in each case the decision by which the TBS orders were first extended beyond the initial four years, that being the decision which in the applicants submission ought to have given due effect to Article 38e 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 35 above) but did not. The six-month period therefore began to run no later than 2008 in the case of Mr Mohamed Ahachak; no later than 2006 in the case of Mr Stephanus Maria Anna Hendrikus Janssen; no later than 2007 in the case of Mr Charles Ferdinand van Akerlaken; and no later than 2003 in the case of Ms Mulki Mohamed Wehelie. 46. The applications were lodged on various dates in It follows that they have been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 1 and 4 of the Convention. C. Other complaints 47. Referring in general terms to her complaint under Article 5 1 of the Convention, Ms Wehelie also complained under Article 7 of the Convention, which provides as follows: 1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed She also complained that her detention which in her submission was unlawful constituted inhuman and degrading treatment, and that, having been handed an exclusion order, she was denied treatment aimed at facilitating her gradual return to society. She relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which provides as follows: No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 49. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
10 10 AHACHAK v. THE NETHERLANDS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION For these reasons, the Court by a majority Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Stephen Phillips Registrar Josep Casadevall President APPENDIX List of applicants: /13 AHACHAK, Mohamed /13 JANSSEN, Stephanus Maria Anna Hendrikus /13 VAN AKERLAKEN, Charles Ferdinand /13 WEHELIE, Mulki Mohamed
THIRD 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 informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 21563/08 N.F. against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14 January 2014 as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall, President,
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 51016/11 Orde van Register Adviseurs Nederland OVRAN and others against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 April 2015
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. 21727/08 by Angelique POST against
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 37204/02 Ludmila Yakovlevna GUSAR against the Republic of Moldova and Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 April 2013 as a Chamber
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF GHARIBYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA. (Application no /05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 13 November 2014 FINAL 13/02/2015
THIRD SECTION CASE OF GHARIBYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA (Application no. 19940/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 13 November 2014 FINAL 13/02/2015 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.
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 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 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 informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF BOTEZATU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 14 April 2015 FINAL 14/07/2015
THIRD SECTION CASE OF BOTEZATU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application no. 17899/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 14 April 2015 FINAL 14/07/2015 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationCED/C/NLD/1. International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
United Nations International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance Distr.: General 29 July 2013 Original: English CED/C/NLD/1 Committee on Enforced Disappearances Consideration
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 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 informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF KOVÁČIK v. SLOVAKIA. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT
THIRD SECTION CASE OF KOVÁČIK v. SLOVAKIA (Application no. 50903/06) JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 1 December 2011 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court STRASBOURG 29 November 2011 FINAL 29/02/2012
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 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 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 informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF HANU v. ROMANIA. (Application no /04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 4 June 2013
THIRD SECTION CASE OF HANU v. ROMANIA (Application no. 10890/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 4 June 2013 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF ROMANESCU v. ROMANIA. (Application no /11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 16 May 2017
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF ROMANESCU v. ROMANIA (Application no. 78375/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 16 May 2017 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF NIŢULESCU v. ROMANIA. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 22 September 2015
THIRD SECTION CASE OF NIŢULESCU v. ROMANIA (Application no. 16184/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 22 September 2015 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 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. CASE OF ION TUDOR v. ROMANIA. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 17 December 2013 FINAL 17/03/2014
THIRD SECTION CASE OF ION TUDOR v. ROMANIA (Application no. 14364/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 December 2013 FINAL 17/03/2014 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 14927/12 and 30415/12 István FEHÉR against Slovakia and Erzsébet DOLNÍK against Slovakia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 May 2013
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. 20689/08 by W. against the Netherlands
More informationHUMAN RIGHTS (JERSEY) LAW 2000
HUMAN RIGHTS (JERSEY) LAW 2000 Revised Edition Showing the law as at 1 January 2007 This is a revised edition of the law Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 Arrangement HUMAN RIGHTS (JERSEY) LAW 2000 Arrangement
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 209/16 T.M. and Y.A. against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5 July 2016 as a Chamber composed of: Luis López Guerra,
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 informationAct No. 403/2004 Coll. Article I PART ONE BASIC PROVISIONS
Act No. 403/2004 Coll. of 24 June 2004 on the European Arrest Warrant and on amending and supplementing certain other laws The National Council of the Slovak Republic has enacted this Act: Article I PART
More informationHUDOC: List of Keywords Article by Article
The legal issues dealt with in each case are summarized in a list of Keywords, chosen from a thesaurus of terms taken (in most cases) directly from the text of the European Convention on Human Rights and
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 informationCRIMINAL CODE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA (KZ-1) GENERAL PART. Chapter One FUNDAMENTAL PROVISIONS. Imposition of Criminal Liability Article 1
CRIMINAL CODE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA (KZ-1) GENERAL PART Chapter One FUNDAMENTAL PROVISIONS Imposition of Criminal Liability Article 1 (1) Criminal liability in the Republic of Slovenia may be imposed
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 4860/02 by Julija LEPARSKIENĖ against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 November 2007 as a Chamber
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF JOVIČIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
THIRD SECTION CASE OF JOVIČIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA (Applications nos. 37270/11, 37278/11, 47705/11, 47712/11, 47725/11, 56203/11, 56238/11 and 75689/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 13 January 2015 FINAL 13/04/2015
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 COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF PUHK v. ESTONIA. (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 PUHK v. ESTONIA (Application no. 55103/00) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 February
More informationThe Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe
Recommendation Rec(2006)13 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the use of remand in custody, the conditions in which it takes place and the provision of safeguards against abuse (Adopted
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 informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF GURBAN v. TURKEY. (Application no. 4947/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 15 December 2015
SECOND SECTION CASE OF GURBAN v. TURKEY (Application no. 4947/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 December 2015 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationHandout 5.1 Key provisions of international and regional instruments
Key provisions of international and regional instruments A. Lawful arrest and detention Article 9 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Everyone has the right to liberty and security
More informationBHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX; Given on the 14 th Day of October B.E. 2539; Being the 51 st Year of the Present Reign.
Unofficial Translation PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF PROSTITUTION ACT, B.E. 2539 (1996) 1 BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX; Given on the 14 th Day of October B.E. 2539; Being the 51 st Year of the Present Reign.
More informationAccession (a)/ Succession (d) Relevant Laws Constitution of 21 September 1964 Criminal Code of 10 June 1854 Police Act of 10 February 1961
Country File MALTA Last updated: July 2009 Region Legal system Europe Civil Law/Common Law UNCAT Ratification/ 13 September 1990 (a) Accession (a)/ Succession (d) Relevant Laws Constitution of 21 September
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 ŠEBALJ v. CROATIA. (Application no. 4429/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 28 June 2011
FIRST SECTION CASE OF ŠEBALJ v. CROATIA (Application no. 4429/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 28 June 2011 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may
More informationThe Rights of the Defence According to the ECtHR and CJEU
The Rights of the Defence According to the ECtHR and CJEU Academy of European Law: EU Criminal Law for Defence Counsel Rebecca Niblock 18 October 2013 Article 5 Right to Liberty and Security 1. Everyone
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 informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION. CASE OF MANCINI v. ITALY. (Application no /98) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF MANCINI v. ITALY (Application no. 44955/98) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 2 August
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF STEMPLYS AND DEBESYS v. LITHUANIA. (Applications nos /13 and 71974/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG.
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF STEMPLYS AND DEBESYS v. LITHUANIA (Applications nos. 71024/13 and 71974/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 October 2017 This judgment is final in but it may be subject to editorial revision.
More information5 th Black Sea International Conference
Strasbourg, 7 October 2015 CDL-JU(2015)023 Engl. only EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) in co-operation with THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF GEORGIA THE GERMAN COOPERATION (GIZ)
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 informationNarcotics Addict Rehabilitation Act, B.E (2002) Translation
Narcotics Addict Rehabilitation Act, B.E. 2545 (2002) Translation BHUMIBHOL ADULYADEJ, REX. Given on the 27 day of September B.E. 2545 (2002); Being the 57th year of the Present Reign. His Majesty King
More informationSentencing Act Examinable excerpts of PART 1 PRELIMINARY. 1 Purposes
Examinable excerpts of Sentencing Act 1991 as at 10 April 2018 1 Purposes PART 1 PRELIMINARY The purposes of this Act are (a) to promote consistency of approach in the sentencing of offenders; (b) to have
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 informationConstitution of the Republic of Iceland *
Constitution of the Republic of Iceland * I. Art. 1. Iceland is a Republic with a parliamentary government. Art. 2. Althingi and the President of Iceland jointly exercise legislative power. The President
More informationEuropean Convention on Human Rights
European Convention on Human Rights as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14 Council of Europe Treaty Series, No. 5 Note on the text The text of the Convention is presented as amended by the provisions of
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 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 PANTEA v. ROMANIA (Application no. 33343/96) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 3 June 2003 FINAL
More informationINTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ON THE DEATH PENALTY
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ON THE DEATH PENALTY Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION... 1 2 GENERAL HUMAN RIGHTS PRINCIPLES... 1 3 ABOLITION... 2 4 INTERNATIONAL TREATIES FAVOURING ABOLITION... 3 5 NON-USE...
More informationIntroduction 3. The Meaning of Mental Illness 3. The Mental Health Act 4. Mental Illness and the Criminal Law 6. The Mental Health Court 7
Mental Health Laws Chapter Contents Introduction 3 The Meaning of Mental Illness 3 The Mental Health Act 4 Mental Illness and the Criminal Law 6 The Mental Health Court 7 The Mental Health Review Tribunal
More informationCONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ICELAND 1 (No. 33, 17 June 1944, as amended 30 May 1984, 31 May 1991, 28 June 1995 and 24 June 1999)
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ICELAND 1 (No. 33, 17 June 1944, as amended 30 May 1984, 31 May 1991, 28 June 1995 and 24 June 1999) I. Article 1 Iceland is a Republic with a parliamentary government.
More informationOfficial Gazette of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Official Gazette of the Kingdom of the Netherlands Year 2004 JE MAINTIENDRAI 195 Act of 29 April 2004 implementing the Framework Decision of the Council of the European Union on the European arrest warrant
More informationLAW ON THE COURT OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Strasbourg, 6 December 2000 Restricted CDL (2000) 106 Eng.Only EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) LAW ON THE COURT OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 GENERAL
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 informationQATAR: BRIEFING TO THE UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE 49 TH SESSION, NOVEMBER 2012
Index: MDE 22/001/2012 12 October 2012 QATAR: BRIEFING TO THE UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE 49 TH SESSION, NOVEMBER 2012 I. Introduction Amnesty International welcomes the submission of Qatar
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 informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 22016/10 Florin COSTINIU against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 February 2013 as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall,
More informationRECOMMENDATION No. R (99) 22 OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS TO MEMBER STATES CONCERNING PRISON OVERCROWDING AND PRISON POPULATION INFLATION
RECOMMENDATION No. R (99) 22 OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS TO MEMBER STATES CONCERNING PRISON OVERCROWDING AND PRISON POPULATION INFLATION (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 September 1999 at
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 CASE OF ERKALO v. THE NETHERLANDS (89/1997/873/1085) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 2 September 1998 The
More informationTHE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT BILL, MEMORANDUM.
BILLS SUPPLEMENT No. 13 17th November, 2006 BILLS SUPPLEMENT to the Uganda Gazette No. 67 Volume XCVIX dated 17th November, 2006. Printed by UPPC, Entebbe by Order of the Government. Bill No. 18 International
More informationIn the van der Leer case*,
In the van der Leer case*, * Note by the Registrar: The case is numbered 12/1988/156/210. The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF TSATURYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no /03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 10 January 2012 FINAL 10/04/2012
THIRD SECTION CASE OF TSATURYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 37821/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 January 2012 FINAL 10/04/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationCivil Society Draft Bill for the Special Tribunal for Kenya
Civil Society Draft Bill for the Special Tribunal for Kenya A Bill of Parliament anchored in the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya to establish the Special Tribunal for Kenya pursuant to the Kenya
More informationNumber 14 of Criminal Justice Act 2017
Number 14 of 2017 Criminal Justice Act 2017 Number 14 of 2017 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2017 Section 1. Definition CONTENTS 2. Amendment of Criminal Justice Act 1984 3. Amendment of Criminal Justice (Public
More informationLaw Enforcement Legislation Amendment (Public Safety) Act 2005 No 119
New South Wales Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (Public Safety) Act 2005 No 119 Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002
More informationApplication for the purpose of stay Intra Corporate Transfer (Directive 2014/66/EU) (recognised sponsor) 1 Who can submit this application?
Application for the purpose of stay Intra Corporate Transfer (Directive 2014/66/EU) (recognised sponsor) 1 Who can submit this application? You can only use this form if the IND has acknowledged you as
More informationPrevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act, B.E (1996) Translation
Prevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act, B.E. 2539 (1996) Translation BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX. Given on the 14 th Day of October, B.E. 2539 Being the 51 st Year of the Present Reign His Majesty
More informationInternational Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
United Nations International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance CED/C/ARM/CO/1/Add.1 Distr.: General 23 June 2016 Original: English English, French and Spanish only
More informationGeneral Recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on torture 1
General Recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on torture 1 (a) Countries that are not party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its Optional
More informationPRE-TRIAL COORDINATION PROTOCOL ADULT CHARGES
PRE-TRIAL COORDINATION PROTOCOL ADULT CHARGES This Protocol is subject to change. It is expected that over time changes will be made and the Protocol will be amended. Please refer to our website at www.manitobacourts.mb.ca
More informationList of issues in relation to the report submitted by Gabon under article 29, paragraph 1, of the Convention*
United Nations International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance Distr.: General 18 April 2017 English Original: French English, French and Spanish only Committee on
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 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 informationLegal Supplement Part C to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 57, No. 27, 8th March, 2018
Legal Supplement Part C to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 57, No. 27, 8th March, 2018 No. 4 of 2018 Third Session Eleventh Parliament Republic of Trinidad and Tobago HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BILL
More informationCRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT
WESTERN AUSTRALIA CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT No. 101 of 1990 AN ACT to amend The Criminal Code, the Bush Fires Act 1954, the Coroners Act 1920, the Justices Act 1902 and the Child Welfare Act 1947. [Assented
More informationc t MENTAL HEALTH ACT
c t MENTAL HEALTH ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 6, 2013. It is intended for information and reference
More informationISSUES. Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing. Prepared by: Andrew Mason
SENTENCING ISSUES Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, 1998 Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing Prepared by: Andrew Mason Also available to members at the SCDLA Web site:
More informationEXTRADITION ACT Act 7 of 2017 NOT IN OPERATION ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES
EXTRADITION ACT Act 7 of 2017 NOT IN OPERATION ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES Clause PART I PRELIMINARY 16. Proceedings after arrest 1. Short title 17. Search and seizure 2. Interpretation Sub-Part C Eligibility
More informationMENTAL HEALTH (JERSEY) LAW 2016
Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016 Arrangement MENTAL HEALTH (JERSEY) LAW 2016 Arrangement Article PART 1 5 INTERPRETATION, APPLICATION AND OTHER GENERAL PROVISIONS 5 1 Interpretation... 5 2 Minister s primary
More informationB I L L. wishes to enshrine the entitlement of all to the full range of human rights and fundamental freedoms, safeguarded by the rule of law;
Northern Ireland Bill of Rights 1 A B I L L TO Give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998, to protect and promote other rights arising out of the
More informationSECOND 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 informationREPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON THE APPROVAL AND ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE CRIMINAL CODE
Consolidated version valid as of 1 May 2015 REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON THE APPROVAL AND ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE CRIMINAL CODE 26 September 2000 No VIII-1968 (As last amended on 23 April 2015 No XII-1649)
More informationEuropean Convention on Human Rights
European Convention on Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14 supplemented by Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 13 The text of the Convention is presented
More informationKENYA - THE CONSTITUTION
KENYA - THE CONSTITUTION Article 70 Whereas every person in Kenya is entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, that is to say, the right, whatever his race, tribe, place of origin
More informationOFFICIAL GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOSOVA / No. 33 / 2 SEPTEMBER 2013, PRISTINA
OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOSOVA / No. 33 / 2 SEPTEMBER 2013, PRISTINA LAW NO. 04/L-213 ON INTERNATIONAL LEGAL COOPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS Assembly of Republic of Kosovo, Based on Article
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 informationProposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, XXX COM(2013) 822/2 Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on procedural safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings
More informationPress release issued by the Registrar. Grand Chamber judgment 1. Gäfgen v. Germany (application no /05)
Press release issued by the Registrar Grand Chamber judgment 1 439 01.06.2010 Gäfgen v. Germany (application no. 22978/05) POLICE THREAT TO USE VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILD ABDUCTION SUSPECT AMOUNTED TO ILL-TREATMENT
More informationTHE COURT OF APPEAL OF ST. CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL,
Privy Council Appeal No. 3 of 1998 Greene Browne Appellant v. The Queen Respondent FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ST. CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS --------------- JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
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 informationGovernment Gazette REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Please note that most Acts are published in English and another South African official language. Currently we only have capacity to publish the English versions. This means that this document will only
More information