SECOND SECTION DECISION
|
|
- Tyler Gaines
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no /10 DEBÚT Zrt. and Others against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 20 November 2012 as a Chamber composed of: Guido Raimondi, President, Danutė Jočienė, Peer Lorenzen, András Sajó, Işıl Karakaş, Nebojša Vučinić, Helen Keller, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 May 2010, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, DEBÚT Zrt., EGÚT Zrt. and Colas Dunántúl Zrt. are privately held companies limited by shares, registered under Hungarian law, with their seats in Debrecen, Eger and Zalaegerszeg, respectively. A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
2 2 DEBÚT Zrt. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY DECISION The applicants are construction companies, against which the Competition Office conducted investigations on suspicion of an unlawful cartel agreement. The applicants and other companies were suspected of having shared the market for public road constructions between themselves. Under section 65/A of the Act Prohibiting Unfair Market Practices, on 27 February 2004 the Budapest Regional Court authorised the Office s investigators to enter the applicants premises and those of other related enterprises without prior notification and to search for direct evidence of their unlawful cartel agreement. No appeal lay against the authorisation. The investigators carried out dawn raids (that is, unannounced house searches very early in the morning) on the premises of several enterprises, including those of the applicants, and drafted an enquiry report on their findings. The applicants could have complained about the measure within three days but did not do so. On 14 July 2005 the Competition Board, the decision-making body of the Office, published on the Office s website its preliminary opinion drawn up on the basis of the report. In its decision of 22 September 2005 the Competition Board established that the applicants and other companies had indeed divided the market between themselves and imposed substantial fines on them. The applicants sought judicial review. They argued that the Board s decision had been adopted in biased proceedings and based partly on documents which had been retrieved in a manner contrary to Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. On 6 February 2008 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the action, holding that the Competition Office had conducted lawful proceedings and carried out properly reasoned and justified raids on the applicants business premises. On 15 October 2008 the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. On 3 November 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants petition for review. All three court instances addressed the merits of the applicants arguments about the admissibility of the documents as evidence and the lawfulness of the procedure. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 6 1 that the procedure of the Competition Board of the Office, a tribunal, was unfair, just as much as that of the courts. Under Article 6 2 they submit that the Competition Board breached the principle of the presumption of innocence by its preliminary decision. They further complain under Article 8 that their right
3 DEBÚT Zrt. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY DECISION 3 to respect for home was infringed, the dawn raids carried out against them were not necessary in a democratic society. Finally, they complain that no effective remedy was available to them against the above grievances, in breach of Article 13, and that the third parties also affected by the searches had no opportunity at all to complain about them. THE LAW 1. The applicants complain that the proceedings of the Competition Board and those of the courts were not fair. In their view, the Board is a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 1, whose proceedings should have been in line with that provision, but were not. In particular, the documents submitted by the Board to the court in order to obtain authorisation for the dawn raids were not available to the applicants. Moreover, the court decisions authorising the search were not subject to appeal. Furthermore, the search operations were not conducted under effective control, the lawfulness of their method was not guaranteed by the presence of a police officer, and the three-day deadline for lodging a complaint against them was unduly short. Lastly, the third parties affected by the search had no opportunity at all to complain of the searches. Assuming the applicability of Article 6 1, the Court considers that any potential unfairness occurring in the Competition Board s proceedings must be seen as having been remedied by the ensuing three court instances which examined the merits of the applicants arguments about the admissibility of the documents as evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, A. Menarini Diagnostics S.R.L. v. Italy, no /08, 57 to 67, 27 September 2011; Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, 61, Series A no. 294-B; Saunders v. the United Kingdom, 17 December 1996, 67, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI). Moreover, there is no appearance that the courts themselves lacked impartiality or that their procedure was otherwise unfair. This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 4 of the Convention. 2. The applicants also complain under Article 6 2 that the Competition Board infringed the principle of the presumption of innocence by the publication of its preliminary report. The Court observes that the applicants have not demonstrated in any manner how the impugned publication influenced the ensuing consideration of the case by three judicial instances. Therefore, there is no appearance of a violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence (see Daktaras v. Lithuania, no /98, 41 to 45, ECHR 2000-X; compare and contrast Poncelet v. Belgium, no /07, 49 to 61,
4 4 DEBÚT Zrt. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY DECISION 30 March 2010). It follows that this complaint is likewise manifestly illfounded within the meaning of Article 35 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 4 of the Convention. 3. The applicants further complain under Article 8 that their right to respect for home was violated, in particular in that the dawn raids were unjustified in a democratic society. The Court observes that the measures complained of were indisputably lawful and pursued the legitimate aim of ensuring the economic well-being of the country by combating cartel practices. An unannounced courtordered search of the suspected companies business premises must be seen as an appropriate measure to collect evidence, without which the authorities had virtually no chance to unveil those activities. The Court notes that the domestic courts made a full review of the lawfulness of the searches which were apparently carried out by specialised investigators and were susceptible to a complaint procedure and that it was not found that they had been performed in an obtrusive manner (see, mutatis mutandis, Frank GmbH v. Germany (dec.), no /07, 15 November 2011). It is satisfied that the impugned measure served the purpose of searching for direct evidence of the applicants allegedly unlawful cartel agreement and was thus limited in nature, without any appearance of arbitrariness or entailing any disadvantage on the applicants side in excess of its very purpose. The Court has held that the protection of professional or business activities or premises would be consonant with the essential object and purpose of Article 8, namely to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities (see, for example, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, 31, Series A no. 31; Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, 31, Series A no. 251-B). In certain circumstances the rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention may be construed as including the right to respect for a company s registered office, branches or other business premises (see Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no /97, 41, ECHR 2002 III). However, contrary to private dwellings, corporate business premises do not necessarily serve the enjoyment of private and family life or personal development of individuals as is the case with private dwellings, which serves as one of the fundamental reasons for the specific protection granted to people s home. Such corporate premises are not prima facie related to a profession or business that may well be conducted from a person s private residence (see Niemietz, cited above, 30), and thus the corporate owners expectations of respect is not necessarily the same as is due to private dwellings or to premises related to the above professional and business activities of private persons. Where professional or business activities or premises were involved, and as long as the relevant legislation and practice affords adequate and effective safeguards against abuse in searches, the Contracting States entitlement to
5 DEBÚT Zrt. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY DECISION 5 interfere might well be more far-reaching than would otherwise be the case (see Société Colas Est and Others, cited above, 48-49). In the circumstances of the present case, the impugned measure, susceptible to a complaint procedure (see above in chapter A of The Facts), cannot be regarded as disproportionate. This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 4 of the Convention. 4. Concerning Article 13, the Court considers that, in the absence of an arguable claim from the perspective of the Articles invoked above and because Article 13 has no independent existence, this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 4 of the Convention. 5. Lastly, for the Court, the applicants submissions addressing the alleged prejudice suffered by entities other than themselves are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court by a majority Declares the application inadmissible. Stanley Naismith Registrar Guido Raimondi President
SECOND SECTION. CASE OF HARRISON McKEE v. HUNGARY. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 3 June 2014 FINAL 13/10/2014
SECOND SECTION CASE OF HARRISON McKEE v. HUNGARY (Application no. 22840/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 3 June 2014 FINAL 13/10/2014 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 54041/14 G.H. against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 June 2015 as a Chamber composed of: Işıl Karakaş, President, András
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 17064/06 by Boruch SHUB against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 30 June 2009 as a Chamber composed
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF EŞİM v. TURKEY. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 17 September 2013 FINAL 17/12/2013
SECOND SECTION CASE OF EŞİM v. TURKEY (Application no. 59601/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 September 2013 FINAL 17/12/2013 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be subject
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 20513/08 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 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 informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF YOUTH INITIATIVE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS v. SERBIA. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 25 June 2013 FINAL 25/09/2013
SECOND SECTION CASE OF YOUTH INITIATIVE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS v. SERBIA (Application no. 48135/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 June 2013 FINAL 25/09/2013 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 53235/11 and 8784/13 Silvia BRÁS DE MATOS against Portugal and Sandra Maria DA COSTA TORREZÃO against Portugal The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section),
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF VAJNAI v. HUNGARY. (Application no. 6061/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 23 September 2014
SECOND SECTION CASE OF VAJNAI v. HUNGARY (Application no. 6061/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 23 September 2014 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. VAJNAI v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF GARZIČIĆ v. MONTENEGRO. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 21 September 2010 FINAL 21/12/2010
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF GARZIČIĆ v. MONTENEGRO (Application no. 17931/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 21 September 2010 FINAL 21/12/2010 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may
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 informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF FOKAS v. TURKEY. (Application no /02) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG. 1 October 2013 FINAL 01/01/2014
SECOND SECTION CASE OF FOKAS v. TURKEY (Application no. 31206/02) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG 1 October 2013 FINAL 01/01/2014 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF VOJNITY v. HUNGARY. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 12 February 2013
SECOND SECTION CASE OF VOJNITY v. HUNGARY (Application no. 29617/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 12 February 2013 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
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 informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF NEKVEDAVIČIUS v. LITHUANIA. (Application no. 1471/05) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG.
SECOND SECTION CASE OF NEKVEDAVIČIUS v. LITHUANIA (Application no. 1471/05) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG 17 November 2015 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article
More informationTHIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE GRAND CHAMBER WHICH DELIVERED JUDGMENT IN THE CASE ON 03/04/2012
SECOND SECTION CASE OF BOULOIS v. LUXEMBOURG (Application no. 37575/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 14 December 2010 THIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE GRAND CHAMBER WHICH DELIVERED JUDGMENT IN THE CASE ON 03/04/2012
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 64372/11 Khalil NAZARI against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6 September 2016 as a Chamber composed of: Işıl Karakaş, 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 FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 60974/00 by ROSELTRANS, FINLEASE
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF UKRAINE-TYUMEN v. UKRAINE. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION CASE OF UKRAINE-TYUMEN v. UKRAINE (Application no. 22603/02) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG
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 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 THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF application no. 34311/96 by Adolf HUBNER against
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION. CASE OF TÜM HABER SEN AND ÇINAR v. TURKEY
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF TÜM HABER SEN AND ÇINAR v. TURKEY (Application no. 28602/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF VENSKUTĖ v. LITHUANIA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 11 December 2012
SECOND SECTION CASE OF VENSKUTĖ v. LITHUANIA (Application no. 10645/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 11 December 2012 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 FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 41092/06 by Susanne MATTENKLOTT
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 68611/14 Jolita GUBAVIČIENĖ against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 September 2015 as a Committee composed of: Paul
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. 35178/97 by Hubert ANKARCRONA
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF KÖSE v. TURKEY. (Application no /02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 December 2010 FINAL 07/03/2011
SECOND SECTION CASE OF KÖSE v. TURKEY (Application no. 37616/02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 December 2010 FINAL 07/03/2011 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be subject
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 informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF MAIORANO AND SERAFINI v. ITALY. (Application no. 997/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 25 November 2014
SECOND SECTION CASE OF MAIORANO AND SERAFINI v. ITALY (Application no. 997/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 November 2014 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. MAIORANO AND SERAFINI
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF ROBATHIN v. AUSTRIA. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 3 July 2012
FIRST SECTION CASE OF ROBATHIN v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 30457/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 3 July 2012 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may
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 FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 16153/03 by Vladimir LAZAREV
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION. CASE OF KOLESNICHENKO v. RUSSIA. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF KOLESNICHENKO v. RUSSIA (Application no. 19856/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 9
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 informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF REISNER v. TURKEY. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT (Merits) STRASBOURG. 21 July 2015
SECOND SECTION CASE OF REISNER v. TURKEY (Application no. 46815/09) JUDGMENT (Merits) STRASBOURG 21 July 2015 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationDECISION. Date of adoption: 6 June Case No. 12/07. Teki BOKSHI and Zeqir BUJUPI. against UNMIK
DECISION Date of adoption: 6 June 2008 Case No. 12/07 Teki BOKSHI and Zeqir BUJUPI against UNMIK The Human Right Advisory Panel sitting on 4 June 2008 With the following members present: Mr. Marek NOWICKI,
More informationIndex of the session
Fundamental Rights of Companies in Transnational Law Dr. E-mail: gordillo@deusto.es European Master in Transnational Trade Law and Finance Third Edition 2010/2012 www.transnational.deusto.es/emttl Index
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF POPNIKOLOV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /02)
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF POPNIKOLOV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 30388/02) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG 25 March 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
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 informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF SILICKIENĖ v. LITHUANIA. (Application no /02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 10 April 2012 FINAL 10/07/2012
SECOND SECTION CASE OF SILICKIENĖ v. LITHUANIA (Application no. 20496/02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 April 2012 FINAL 10/07/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may
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 informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF CHINNICI v. ITALY (No. 2) (Application no /03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 14 April 2015
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF CHINNICI v. ITALY (No. 2) (Application no. 22432/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 14 April 2015 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
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 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 informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF ULLENS DE SCHOOTEN AND REZABEK v. BELGIUM. (Applications nos. 3989/07 and 38353/07) JUDGMENT (Extracts) STRASBOURG
SECOND SECTION CASE OF ULLENS DE SCHOOTEN AND REZABEK v. BELGIUM (Applications nos. 3989/07 and 38353/07) JUDGMENT (Extracts) STRASBOURG 20 September 2011 This judgment is final but it may be subject to
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 66365/09 Rimantas SAVICKAS against Lithuania and 5 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 October
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 GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA DI PALAZZO GIUSTINIANI v. ITALY (Application no.
More informationFOURTH SECTION DECISION
FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 17969/10 Janina Gelena SELINA against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5 September 2017 as a Committee composed of: Paulo
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF HORVÁTH AND VAJNAI v. HUNGARY. (Application nos /11 and 55798/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG.
SECOND SECTION CASE OF HORVÁTH AND VAJNAI v. HUNGARY (Application nos. 55795/11 and 55798/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 23 September 2014 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. HORVÁTH
More informationCHROUST v. CZECH REPUBLIC DECISION 1
CHROUST v. CZECH REPUBLIC DECISION 1... THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Miroslav Chroust, is a Czech national who was born in 1949 and lives in Prague. He was represented before the Court by Mr E. Janča, of
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 informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 56619/15 Rasmus MALVER against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29 May 2018 as a Committee composed of: Ledi Bianku, 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 THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 76682/01 by P4 RADIO HELE NORGE
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 CASE OF DEMEBUKOV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 68020/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 28
More informationGRAND CHAMBER. CASE OF GROSS v. SWITZERLAND. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 30 September 2014
GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF GROSS v. SWITZERLAND (Application no. 67810/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 30 September 2014 This judgment is final but may be subject to editorial revision. GROSS v. SWITZERLAND JUDGMENT
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 FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 42197/98 by Ilaria SALVETTI
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF SZIMA v. HUNGARY. (Application no /11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 9 October 2012 FINAL 11/02/2013
SECOND SECTION CASE OF SZIMA v. HUNGARY (Application no. 29723/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 9 October 2012 FINAL 11/02/2013 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be subject
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF TONIOLO v. SAN MARINO AND ITALY. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 26 June 2012
THIRD SECTION CASE OF TONIOLO v. SAN MARINO AND ITALY (Application no. 44853/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 26 June 2012 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
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 informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF VUJOVIĆ AND LIPA D.O.O. v. MONTENEGRO. (Application no /15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 20 February 2018
SECOND SECTION CASE OF VUJOVIĆ AND LIPA D.O.O. v. MONTENEGRO (Application no. 18912/15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 20 February 2018 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2
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 FIRST SECTION CASE OF KRONE VERLAG GmbH & Co. KG v. AUSTRIA (no. 3) (Application no. 39069/97)
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 informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF DIMITROVA v. BULGARIA. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 10 February 2015
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF DIMITROVA v. BULGARIA (Application no. 15452/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 February 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 THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 21727/08 by Angelique POST against
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. 31138/96 by S.Ö., A.K., Ar.K.
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 DECISION
FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 73093/11 Karel FUKSA against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15 January 2013 as a Chamber composed of: Mark Villiger,
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF K.S. AND M.S. v. GERMANY. (Application no /11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 6 October 2016
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF K.S. AND M.S. v. GERMANY (Application no. 33696/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 6 October 2016 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF CEVAT SOYSAL v. TURKEY. (Application no /03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 23 September 2014
SECOND SECTION CASE OF CEVAT SOYSAL v. TURKEY (Application no. 17362/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 23 September 2014 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
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 informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF REKLOS AND DAVOURLIS v. GREECE. (Application no. 1234/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 15 January 2009 FINAL 15/04/2009
FIRST SECTION CASE OF REKLOS AND DAVOURLIS v. GREECE (Application no. 1234/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 January 2009 FINAL 15/04/2009 This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. REKLOS AND DAVOURLIS
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF KUZMENKO v. UKRAINE. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 9 March 2017
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF KUZMENKO v. UKRAINE (Application no. 49526/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 9 March 2017 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 FOURTH SECTION CASE OF PABLA KY v. FINLAND (Application no. 47221/99) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 22 June
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF BAURAS v. LITHUANIA. (Application no /13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 31 October 2017
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF BAURAS v. LITHUANIA (Application no. 56795/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 October 2017 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
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 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 ALAJOS KISS v. HUNGARY. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 20 May 2010 FINAL 20/08/2010
SECOND SECTION CASE OF ALAJOS KISS v. HUNGARY (Application no. 38832/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 20 May 2010 FINAL 20/08/2010 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF VUČINIĆ v. MONTENEGRO. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 5 September 2017
SECOND SECTION CASE OF VUČINIĆ v. MONTENEGRO (Application no. 44533/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 5 September 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. VUČINIĆ v. MONTENEGRO JUDGMENT
More informationDecision adopted by the Committee at its eighth session, 17 to 28 September 2012
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 Distr.: General 13 November 2012 Original: English Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Communication
More informationDraft Statute for an International Criminal Court 1994
Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court 1994 Text adopted by the Commission at its forty-sixth session, in 1994, and submitted to the General Assembly as a part of the Commission s report covering
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF BASARBA OOD v. BULGARIA. (Application no /01) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG. 7 January 2010
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF BASARBA OOD v. BULGARIA (Application no. 77660/01) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG 7 January 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the
More informationA. The particular circumstances of the case with respect to the application against Germany (no /99)
TIEMANN v. FRANCE AND GERMANY DECISION 1 [TRANSLATION] THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Armin Tiemann, is a German national who was born in 1941 and lives in Kirchdorf (Germany). He was represented before the
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 informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 7332/10 by Josef HAVELKA against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 20 September 2011 as
More informationSeite 1 von 10 AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 24208/94 by Karlheinz DEMEL against Austria The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 18 October 1995, the
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. 63486/00 by Sergey Vitalyevich
More informationYour questions about: the Court of Justice of the European Union. the EFTA Court. the European Court of Human Rights
Your questions about: the Court of Justice of the European Union the EFTA Court the European Court of Human Rights the International Court of Justice the International Criminal Court CJEU COURT OF JUSTICE
More informationThe admissibility of an application 1
The admissibility of an application 1 1. Application form and Rule 47 of the Rules of Court...1 2. Exhaustion of domestic remedies and six-month time-limit (Article 35 1 of the Convention)...2 3. Abuse
More information[TRANSLATION] ... THE FACTS
GUIGUE AND SGEN-CFDT v. FRANCE DECISION 1 [TRANSLATION]... THE FACTS The applicants, Mrs Jeanine Guigue and the Federation of Education Unions (SGEN-CFDT), are a French national, born in 1932 and living
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF TURGAY AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (no. 3) (Applications nos /08, 23173/08, 23182/08 and 23200/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
SECOND SECTION CASE OF TURGAY AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (no. 3) (Applications nos. 21950/08, 23173/08, 23182/08 and 23200/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 21 September 2010 FINAL 21/12/2010 This judgment has become
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FORMER THIRD SECTION. CASE OF DEL SOL v. FRANCE. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FORMER THIRD SECTION CASE OF DEL SOL v. FRANCE (Application no. 46800/99) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
More informationINTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE SAFETY AND INDEPENDENCE OF JOURNALISTS AND OTHER MEDIA PROFESSIONALS PREAMBLE
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE SAFETY AND INDEPENDENCE OF JOURNALISTS AND OTHER MEDIA PROFESSIONALS The States Parties to the present Convention, PREAMBLE 1. Reaffirming the commitment undertaken in Article
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF BARTKUS AND KULIKAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA. (Application no /13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 9 January 2018
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF BARTKUS AND KULIKAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA (Application no. 80208/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 9 January 2018 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of
More informationSTATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (CONSOLIDATED VERSION)
STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (CONSOLIDATED VERSION) This text contains the consolidated version of Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union,
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF DAKTARAS v. LITHUANIA. (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 DAKTARAS v. LITHUANIA (Application no. 42095/98) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10
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 informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 18215/06 by GREENPEACE E.V. and others against Germany The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12 May 2009 as a
More informationKARSAI v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT 1
SECOND SECTION CASE OF KARSAI v. HUNGARY (Application no. 5380/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 December 2009 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationFOURTH SECTION DECISION
FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 11987/11 Abdul Wahab KHAN against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Chamber composed of: Ineta
More informationCOMPETITION LAW REGULATION OF HUNGAROPHARMA GYÓGYSZERKERESKEDELMI ZÁRTKÖRŰEN MŰKÖDŐ RÉSZVÉNYTÁRSASÁG
COMPETITION LAW REGULATION OF HUNGAROPHARMA GYÓGYSZERKERESKEDELMI ZÁRTKÖRŰEN MŰKÖDŐ RÉSZVÉNYTÁRSASÁG EXTRACT FOR EXTERNAL USE Effective as of 15 January 2017 2 I. Preamble 1. The aim of this Regulation
More information