THIRD SECTION DECISION
|
|
- Elizabeth Owens
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no /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, President, Alvina Gyulumyan, Ján Šikuta, Luis López Guerra, Nona Tsotsoria, Kristina Pardalos, Valeriu Griţco, judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 September 2010, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having regard to the decision taken by the President of the Chamber to appoint Mrs Kristina Pardalos to sit as ad hoc judge (Article 26 4 of the Convention and Rule 29 1 of the Rules of Court), as Mr Corneliu Bîrsan, the judge elected in respect of Romania, had withdrawn from the case (Rule 28 of the Rules of Court), Having deliberated, decides as follows:
2 2 COSTINIU v. ROMANIA DECISION THE FACTS A. The circumstances of the case 1. The applicant, Mr Florin Costiniu, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Bucharest. He was represented before the Court by Mr Corneliu Liviu Popescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. The Romanian Government ( the Government ) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Irina Cambrea, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3. At the relevant time, the applicant, a judge by profession, was the president of the Civil Section of the High Court of Cassation and Justice. On 8 September 2010, at his request, the President of Romania approved his retirement. 4. On 10 December 2009 the Anti-Corruption Department ( DNA ) of the Prosecutor s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice ( the prosecutor ) started criminal proceedings (începerea urmăririi penale) against the applicant on suspicion of trading in influence (traffic de influenţă). In particular, it was alleged that the applicant had promised C.V. that he would ensure a favourable outcome for C.C., a businessman, in a case pending before the High Court, in exchange for the payment of a sum of money by C.C. to the applicant. C.C., C.V. and a fourth individual were also accused of having committed offences. 5. On 17 December 2009 the applicant was heard by the prosecutor and informed of the decision taken on 10 December On 8 April 2010, at 3.55 p.m., the prosecutor decided, after hearing him again, to take the applicant into custody for twenty-four hours. The applicant was arrested at the DNA s headquarters. Later that day he was handcuffed to one of the co-accused and taken out of the building through the main door with a view to his transfer to a police detention facility, where he arrived at 5.30 p.m. and was taken into custody in accordance with the applicable rules. 7. The applicant and the co-accused to whom he was handcuffed had to climb into a police van through the back door. They had to drag each other into the van while journalists were pressing close to them seeking statements. They were accompanied by police officers from the special intervention forces, who were wearing masks. Newspaper and television crews were present and the events were given widespread media coverage. Footage of the applicant s arrest was broadcast live and shown again on the main channels evening news programmes. Pictures of him wearing handcuffs were also published in newspapers.
3 COSTINIU v. ROMANIA DECISION 3 8. The Judges Association of Romania issued an official protest concerning the use of handcuffs on the applicant. They argued that the measure had not been justified, had been abusive, contradicted Convention standards in the matter, and had been used as a means of intimidating and discrediting the judiciary. 9. On 8 April 2010 the prosecutor sought the High Court s approval for the applicant s pre-trial detention for twenty-nine days. That evening the applicant and his co-accused were taken from the police detention facility to the High Court for a hearing. At the defendants request, the High Court postponed the hearing to the next day, when the defendants were brought before it again. During the hearing, at 3.55 p.m., the Court noted that the applicant s detention had expired and released him. He nevertheless remained in the courtroom of his own free will. The High Court approved the prosecutor s request and ordered that the applicant be placed in pre-trial detention for twenty-nine days starting on 10 April At the end of the hearing, the applicant decided to go to the police detention facility and wait there for the new detention order to take effect. 11. Acting upon an appeal lodged by the applicant, on 12 April 2010 the High Court quashed the decision given on 10 April and annulled the detention order. On the evening of 12 April the applicant was released from police custody. 12. During his pre-trial detention, each time the applicant was conveyed from the police detention facility to the High Court and back he was taken through the main doors of the building handcuffed to a co-accused and surrounded by masked police officers and was exposed to journalists for photographing and filming. The footage obtained by the journalists was then broadcast. 13. The merits of the case against the applicant and his co-accused are currently under examination by the High Court of Cassation and Justice. B. Relevant domestic law 14. The use of handcuffs during detention, including pending trial, is expressly forbidden by Law no. 275 of 20 July 2006 on the execution of sentences ( Law no. 275/2006 ) save for in exceptional circumstances (Article 37). Handcuffs may not be used as a sanction (Article 71). According to Article 81 1 of Law no. 275/2006, the organisation and functioning of pre-trial detention facilities is regulated by common Instructions adopted by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Administration and the Interior. Such instructions have not yet been published in the Official Bulletin.
4 4 COSTINIU v. ROMANIA DECISION The rules of application of Law no. 275/2006 (Regulament de aplicare a Legii nr. 275/2006 privind executarea pedepselor şi a măsurilor dispuse de organele judiciare în cursul procesului penal), applicable primarily to the detention of convicted persons, were published in the Official Bulletin on 16 January They provide that during transportation, detained persons are only to be handcuffed in justified situations (Article 101). The underlying principle in respect of the use of methods of restraint, including handcuffs, is the proportionality of that measure, which should not overstep what is absolutely necessary (Articles ). 15. By Instruction (Ordin) no. 988 of 21 October 2005 the Minister of Administration and the Interior approved the Regulation on the organisation and functioning of preventive detention facilities in police headquarters (Regulamentul privind organizarea şi funcţionarea locurilor de reţinere şi arest preventiv din unităţile de poliţie ale Ministerului Administraţiei şi Internelor). By the same act, the Minister abolished Instruction no. 901 of 10 May 1999 (for details concerning the latter act, see Ali v. Romania, no /02, 46, 9 November 2010). Neither the Instruction nor the Regulation approved by it was published in the Official Bulletin, but they were disseminated through hierarchical channels to all law enforcement agents. The relevant provisions on the use of handcuffs from that Regulation read as follows: Article 85 Handcuffs... may be used temporarily in order to immobilise persons in pre-trial detention in the following situations: (a) during transportation to a court, prosecutor s office or prison, as a measure to prevent any attempt to escape, in well justified circumstances. Article 100 Persons in pre-trial detention will be handcuffed during transportation On 27 October 2008 the General Police Inspectorate issued the Norm on the procedure for immobilisation of persons (Procedură privind imobilizarea persoanelor). This norm was not published in the Official Bulletin, but was distributed through hierarchical channels to law enforcement agents. According to the norm, as a general rule: Immobilisation is a coercive measure taken by police in order to prevent a person from fleeing, being aggressive towards a police officer or another person, or from initiating or continuing a violent act....
5 COSTINIU v. ROMANIA DECISION 5 In any situation, restraint methods should not be used, if possible, beyond what is absolutely necessary to prevent or neutralise aggressive behaviour. On the use of handcuffs, in particular, the norm stated: Handcuffing is a preventive and safety measure taken by the police which consists of applying handcuffs to a person s wrists with a view to limiting his or her physical mobility. Handcuffing is mandatory for... persons in preventive detention, during transfer or escort. It is forbidden to keep a handcuffed person in awkward positions (kneeling, lying down etc.) after immobilisation, or to expose him or her in public places or in police headquarters where media representatives are able to film (photograph) him or her. 17. Excerpts from Law no. 218/2002 on the organisation and functioning of the police concerning the use of handcuffs and other means of restraint are set out in Archip v. Romania, no /08, 28, 27 September The relevant provisions of Decree no. 31/1954 concerning remedies for persons claiming damage to their dignity or reputation ( Decree no. 31/1954 ) are set out in Rotaru v. Romania ([GC], no /95, 29, ECHR 2000-V). COMPLAINTS 19. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subject to degrading treatment each time he had been taken into a public place handcuffed. He argued that his social status, age, weight, the nature of the accusation (a non-violent crime) and his behaviour (willingly cooperating with the authorities throughout the investigation) had not justified the taking of the measure. He considered the fact that he had been handcuffed to another co-accused and had been forced to climb into the car despite his obvious difficulty in doing so to have been an additional infringement of his dignity. He also complained that he had constantly been surrounded by masked police officers, which had given the public a misleading message that he was a particularly dangerous individual posing a serious threat to public order. He also complained that the authorities had used the main doors to get him in or out of the buildings each time he had been transferred, thus exposing him publicly before many journalists who had photographed and had filmed him and had then widely disseminated information about his arrest. The applicant considered that the authorities attitude showed their intention to humiliate him, to put him in distressing situations and to deliberately offer journalists the opportunity to photograph him in such circumstances.
6 6 COSTINIU v. ROMANIA DECISION 20. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant considered that his public exposure by the authorities had infringed his right to respect for his privacy, in so far as it had related to his image, dignity, honour and reputation. 21. Lastly, the applicant cited Article 13 of the Convention and claimed that there had not been any mechanism at his disposal to complain of the alleged violation of his rights protected by Articles 3 and 8. In his view, an action based on Article 54 of Decree no. 31/1954 would not have constituted an effective remedy. He relied on Rotaru (cited above, 70). He also pointed out that the civil courts had systematically declared such actions inadmissible on the grounds that they lacked jurisdiction to deal with aspects of criminal proceedings. THE LAW A. On the complaint raised under Article 3 of the Convention 22. The applicant complained that he had suffered humiliation each time he had been taken to a public place handcuffed. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 1. The parties arguments 23. The Government raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. In their view, the applicant should have lodged either a complaint about the wearing of handcuffs in public, under Law no. 275/2006, or a criminal complaint of abuse of office or ill-treatment against the police officers who had exposed him to the press. 24. The applicant contested the effectiveness of those remedies in his particular case. 25. As to the remedy provided for by Law no. 275/2006, he argued that the judge responsible for examining the actions lodged under that law (judecatorul delegat - the delegate judge ) could only deal with matters concerning the detention centre and not concerning the police officers responsible for the transportation of detainees, who belonged to a different structure; his case thus did not fall under the delegate judge s competence ratione personae, at least from 3.55 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. on 8 April 2010, when the first instance of being transported in humiliating conditions occurred (see paragraph 6 above). On the basis of Article 29 of Law
7 COSTINIU v. ROMANIA DECISION 7 no. 275/2006, he further argued that, at least during his first transportation from the prosecutor s office to the court, he had not been under the responsibility of a detention centre, and thus that law was not applicable ratione temporis to his case. He also noted that the Government had failed to adduce any examples of domestic case-law in which such actions had been successful before the domestic courts. 26. As to the criminal complaint, the applicant put forward the argument that despite the significant number of situations where public figures had been exposed in debasing circumstances by the authorities during criminal proceedings, no prosecutor had ever initiated investigations of his own motion; moreover, the Government had not been able to produce any decision by the domestic courts in a relevant case. He also argued that the prosecutors were not independent and impartial as they belonged to a hierarchical institution and were ultimately subordinated to the Ministry of Justice. He relied on Vasilescu v. Romania (22 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III) and Pantea v. Romania (no /96, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts)). 27. Lastly, the applicant averred that an action under Decree no. 31/1954 would not stand a fair chance of success. He made reference to Rotaru, cited above. 2. The Court s assessment 28. The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies referred to in Article 35 of the Convention obliges those seeking to bring their case against the State before an international judicial or arbitral organ to use first the remedies provided by the national legal system, thus dispensing the States from answering before an international body for their acts before they have had an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal systems. In order to comply with this rule, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see, among many other authorities, Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, 51-52, Reports 1996-VI, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no /94, 74-75, ECHR 1999-IV). It further reiterates that the applicants mere doubts as to the prospect of success and the effectiveness of the available domestic remedies, unsupported by any convincing evidence, is not a plausible reason for failure to make use of these remedies (see Kunqurova v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 5117/03, 23 June 2005, and Guliyev and Ramazanov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no /02, 14 February 2006). 29. On the facts of the present case, the Court observes that the applicant did not complain to any national authority (such as the courts, prosecutor s office, detention centre or police) about the treatment to which he had been subjected.
8 8 COSTINIU v. ROMANIA DECISION However, the national laws dictate that the use of handcuffs should be limited to exceptional circumstances and not exceed what is absolutely necessary, thus placing the principle of proportionality at the core of the matter (see paragraph 14 above). Therefore, the applicant could not claim to be certain of the lack of any prospect of success of a complaint about the use of handcuffs. In fact, by failing to lodge any sort of complaint with the national authorities, he made it impossible for the latter to test the legality of the implementing norms and regulations adopted by the Executive and the police, which admittedly seem to have made the use of handcuffs for the transportation of detainees the default practice (see paragraphs 15 and 16 above). 30. The Court will consider the possible remedies suggested by the Government, namely, an action under Law no. 275/2006 and a criminal complaint. 31. As regards the first remedy, the Court notes the applicant s argument that, at least on the first occasion, on 8 April 2010, before he was officially taken into the custody of the pre-trial detention centre, the provisions of Law no. 275/2006 were not applicable to him as he was not under the authority of the detention centre (see paragraph 6 above). The Court further observers that the instructions issued by the police and the Ministry of Administration and the Interior do indeed indicate that any transportation between detention centres and courts is under the responsibility of the police and not the pre-trial detention centres. However, the Court also notes that the police instruction prohibits immobilisation in awkward positions or public exposure of handcuffed persons (see paragraph 16 in fine above). Reiterating that it is not its role to examine the national law in abstract (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, 33, Series A no. 28), the Court considers, given the elements at its disposal, that the applicant could not claim to be certain of the lack of any prospect of success of a complaint raised under these circumstances (see also paragraph 29 above). 32. The applicant also contested the effectiveness of a criminal complaint as a remedy for abuse of office or ill-treatment. He mainly argued that the prosecutors would not be independent and impartial, and that it was for the authorities to initiate the investigation proprio motu. 33. The Court observes that the applicant did not adduce any evidence in support of his allegations that the prosecutors lacked independence and impartiality in this particular case. It notes that if dissatisfied with the prosecutor s decision, an applicant can lodge a complaint with the courts which are ultimately responsible for examining the merits of the criminal case (see, among many other authorities, Archip, cited above, 22). In any event, as the applicant failed to complain to the authorities about his situation, the Court cannot speculate as to what would have been the outcome of such an action. The applicant in Archip (cited above, 10-11
9 COSTINIU v. ROMANIA DECISION 9 and 16-24) lodged such a criminal complaint against the police officers who had handcuffed him to a tree in the courtyard of the police station for few hours and that complaint was examined on the merits by the courts; the fact alone that it was ultimately dismissed by the domestic courts does not render such a complaint ineffective for the purposes of the Convention. 34. As to the second argument put forward by the applicant, the mere fact that the authorities could have examined the situation at their own initiative does not exonerate the applicant from his obligation to bring the matter to their attention himself. In fact, the applicant may still lodge such a complaint with the authorities and thus give them an opportunity to deal with the matter, as the time-limits for lodging a criminal complaint have not yet expired. Only by so doing will the applicant observe the principle of subsidiarity which lies at the basis of the applicability of the Convention. 35. For all these reasons, the Court considers that the applicant should have complained to the authorities about the fact that he had been kept handcuffed in public places. It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. B. On the other complaints 36. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant considered that his public exposure by the authorities had infringed his right to respect for his privacy in so far as it related to his image, dignity, honour and reputation. 37. Having regard to the finding relating to Article 3 (see paragraph 35 above), the Court considers that this complaint is likewise inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and must be rejected under Article 35 1 and 4 of the Convention. 38. Lastly, under Article 13 of the Convention the applicant claimed that there had not been any mechanism at his disposal for complaining of the alleged violation of his rights protected by Articles 3 and 8. In his view, an action based on Article 54 of Decree no. 31/1954 would not have constituted an effective remedy. He relied on Rotaru (cited above, 70). He also pointed out that the civil courts had systematically declared such actions inadmissible on the ground that they lacked jurisdiction to deal with aspects of criminal proceedings. 39. The Court has found that the applicant had an effective remedy at his disposal to complain about the alleged violation of his rights. Therefore, 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.
10 10 COSTINIU v. ROMANIA DECISION It follows that this complaint 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. Santiago Quesada Registrar Josep Casadevall President
THIRD 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 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 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. 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 informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF VALENTINO ACATRINEI v. ROMANIA. (Application no /04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 25 June 2013 FINAL 25/09/2013
THIRD SECTION CASE OF VALENTINO ACATRINEI v. ROMANIA (Application no. 18540/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 June 2013 FINAL 25/09/2013 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
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 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 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 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 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 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. CASE OF BREGA AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 24 January 2012
THIRD SECTION CASE OF BREGA AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 61485/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 24 January 2012 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
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 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 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 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 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 informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF EPNERS-GEFNERS v. LATVIA. (Application no /02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 29 May 2012 FINAL 29/08/2012
THIRD SECTION CASE OF EPNERS-GEFNERS v. LATVIA (Application no. 37862/02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 29 May 2012 FINAL 29/08/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
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 informationRehabilitation and mutual recognition practice concerning EU law on transfer of persons sentenced or awaiting trial May 2015
Rehabilitation and mutual recognition practice concerning EU law on transfer of persons sentenced or awaiting trial May 2015 Country: Romania FRANET Contractor: Human European Consultancy Author(s) name:
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 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 HÉNAF v. FRANCE (Application no. 65436/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 27 November
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 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 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 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 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 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. CASE OF BERARU v. ROMANIA. (Application no /04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 18 March 2014
THIRD SECTION CASE OF BERARU v. ROMANIA (Application no. 40107/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 March 2014 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may
More informationConvention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment DECISION. Communication No. 281/2005
UNITED NATIONS CAT Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Distr. RESTRICTED * CAT/C/38/D/281/2005 ** 5 June 2007 Original: ENGLISH COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF KHACHATRYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 27 November 2012 FINAL 27/02/2013
THIRD SECTION CASE OF KHACHATRYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA (Application no. 23978/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 27 November 2012 FINAL 27/02/2013 This judgment has become final under 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 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 informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF APOSTU v. ROMANIA. (Application no /12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 3 February 2015
THIRD SECTION CASE OF APOSTU v. ROMANIA (Application no. 22765/12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 3 February 2015 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 SECOND SECTION PANTEA v. ROMANIA (Application no. 33343/96) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 3 June 2003 FINAL
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 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 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 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 informationTHE LAW ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS (Official Gazette of Montenegro, No. 04/08 dated ) I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
THE LAW ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS (Official Gazette of Montenegro, No. 04/08 dated 17.01.2008) I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 1 This Law shall regulate the conditions and procedure
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 43334/05 by Hayk PAPYAN and Others against Armenia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29 June 2010 as a Chamber
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 informationTHIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE GRAND CHAMBER WHICH DELIVERED JUDGMENT IN THE CASE ON 13/12/2012
THIRD SECTION CASE OF CREANGĂ v. ROMANIA (Application no. 29226/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 June 2010 THIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE GRAND CHAMBER WHICH DELIVERED JUDGMENT IN THE CASE ON 13/12/2012 This
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 informationFIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application no /00. against Russia
MENESHEVA v. RUSSIA About Project FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 59261/00 by Olga Yevgenyevna MENESHEVA against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section),
More informationExcessive use of police force against 19 year old Roma
issued by the Registrar of the Court no. 155 22.02.2011 Excessive use of police force against 19 year old Roma In today s Chamber judgment in the case Soare and Others v. Romania (application no. 24329/02),
More informationThe right to interpretation and translation and the right to information in criminal proceedings in the EU
Submissive Template The right to interpretation and translation and the right to information in criminal proceedings in the EU May 2015 Country: Romania FRANET contractor: Human European Consultancy Author(s)
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 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 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 informationSubmitted by: The family of M.A., later joined by M.A. as submitting party [names deleted]
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE M.A. v. Italy Communication No. 117/1981 10 April 1984 ADMISSIBILITY Submitted by: The family of M.A., later joined by M.A. as submitting party [names deleted] Alleged victim: M.A.
More informationOfficial Journal of the European Union. (Legislative acts) DIRECTIVES
11.3.2016 L 65/1 I (Legislative acts) DIRECTIVES DIRECTIVE (EU) 2016/343 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence
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 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 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 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 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 informationConvention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
UNITED NATIONS CAT Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Distr. GENERAL CAT/C/CR/31/6 11 February 2004 ENGLISH Original: FRENCH COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE
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 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 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 informationDecision adopted by the Committee at its fifty-second session, 28 April 23 May Sergei Kirsanov (not represented by counsel)
United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Distr.: General 19 June 2014 CAT/C/52/D/478/2011 Original: English Committee against Torture Communication
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 informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF I.G. v. MOLDOVA. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 15 May 2012 FINAL 15/08/2012
THIRD SECTION CASE OF I.G. v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 53519/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 May 2012 FINAL 15/08/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be subject
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF PUGŽLYS v. POLAND. (Application no. 446/10) STRASBOURG. 14 June 2016
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF PUGŽLYS v. POLAND (Application no. 446/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 14 June 2016 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may
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 KARAPETYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no /05)
THIRD SECTION CASE OF KARAPETYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 22387/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 27 October 2009 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
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 informationInternational covenant on civil and political rights CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT
UNITED NATIONS CCPR International covenant on civil and political rights Distr. GENERAL CCPR/C/BRA/CO/2 1 December 2005 Original: ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Eighty-fifth session CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS
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 informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF CSOMA v. ROMANIA. (Application no. 8759/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 15 January 2013
THIRD SECTION CASE OF CSOMA v. ROMANIA (Application no. 8759/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 January 2013 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF SAGHATELYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no. 7984/06)
THIRD SECTION CASE OF SAGHATELYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 7984/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 20 October 2015 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationConvention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
UNITED NATIONS CAT Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE Fortieth session 28 April 16 May 2008 Distr. GENERAL 8 April 2008 Original:
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. 14139/03 by Haci Bayram BOLAT
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 informationFIRST SECTION. Application no /10. against Russia lodged on 7 August 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS
FIRST SECTION Application no. 48741/10 by Aleksandr Nikolayevich MILOVANOV against Russia lodged on 7 August 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Nikolayevich Milovanov, is a Russian
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 informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF MARINA v. LATVIA. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 26 October 2010 FINAL 26/01/2011
THIRD SECTION CASE OF MARINA v. LATVIA (Application no. 46040/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 26 October 2010 FINAL 26/01/2011 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be subject
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 informationSubject: Torture and ill-treatment by police officers in Moldova
Karel Schwarzenberg, Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic, Presidency of the European Union Brussels, 4 May 2009 Ref: B857 Dear Mr Schwarzenberg, Subject: Torture and ill-treatment by police officers
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF VARTIC v. ROMANIA (no. 2) (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 17 December 2013
THIRD SECTION CASE OF VARTIC v. ROMANIA (no. 2) (Application no. 14150/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 December 2013 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationA review of laws and policies to prevent and remedy violence against children in police and pre-trial detention in Bangladesh
A review of laws and policies to prevent and remedy violence against children in police and pre-trial detention in Bangladesh Summary Report 1. INTRODUCTION Violence against children who are deprived of
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 informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF HOVHANNISYAN AND SHIROYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no. 5065/06)
THIRD SECTION CASE OF HOVHANNISYAN AND SHIROYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 5065/06) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG 20 July 2010 FINAL 20/10/2010 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the
More informationFOURTH SECTION. Application no /09 by Tiina Johanna SALUMÄKI against Finland lodged on 30 April 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS
20 January 2010 FOURTH SECTION Application no. 23605/09 by Tiina Johanna SALUMÄKI against Finland lodged on 30 April 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Tiina Johanna Salumäki, is a Finnish
More informationThe Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Portorreal v. Dominican Republic Communication No. 188/1984 5 November 1987 VIEWS Submitted by: Ramon B. Martinez Portorreal Alleged victim: The author State party concerned: Dominican
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
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 informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF SIMONYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 April 2016
FIRST SECTION CASE OF SIMONYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 18275/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 April 2016 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF B.S. v. SPAIN. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT [Extracts] STRASBOURG. 24 July 2012 FINAL 24/10/2012
THIRD SECTION CASE OF B.S. v. SPAIN (Application no. 47159/08) JUDGMENT [Extracts] STRASBOURG 24 July 2012 FINAL 24/10/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationInternational covenant on civil and political rights CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT
UNITED NATIONS CCPR International covenant on civil and political rights Distr. GENERAL CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3 12 December 2007 ENGLISH Original: FRENCH HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Ninety-first session Geneva, 15
More informationResolution adopted by the Human Rights Council on 29 September /16. Human rights in the administration of justice, including juvenile justice
United Nations General Assembly Distr.: General 9 October 2017 A/HRC/RES/36/16 Original: English Human Rights Council Thirty-sixth session 11 29 September 2017 Agenda item 3 Resolution adopted by the Human
More informationCouncil of the European Union Brussels, 22 January 2016 (OR. en)
Council of the European Union Brussels, 22 January 2016 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2013/0407 (COD) 5264/16 INFORMATION NOTE From: To: Subject: General Secretariat of the Council CODEC 33 DROIPEN
More information