FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
|
|
- Blanche Goodman
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no /06 by Herbert BACHOWSKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 November 2010 as a Chamber composed of: Nicolas Bratza, President, Lech Garlicki, David Thór Björgvinsson, Päivi Hirvelä, Ledi Bianku, Nebojša Vučinić, Vincent Anthony de Gaetano, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 August 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Herbert Bachowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1939 and lives in Freyung. He was represented before the Court by Mr L. Cholewa, a lawyer practising in Katowice.
2 2 BACHOWSKI v. POLAND DECISION A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 1959 the applicant was convicted of the dissemination of false information, punishable on the basis of Article 23 paragraph 1 of the so-called small criminal code (mały kodeks karny), a decree adopted on 13 June 1946, and was sentenced to three years imprisonment. The applicant had prepared and distributed leaflets in which he stated that Poland was dominated by the Soviet Union and that this state of affairs was unacceptable. He subsequently served two years of his sentence. On 23 August 1994 the applicant lodged an application under section 3 paragraph 1 of the Law of 23 February 1991 on the annulment of convictions of persons persecuted for activities aimed at achieving independence for Poland ( the 1991 Act ) with the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki), seeking to have his conviction declared null and void. On 12 February 1997 the Katowice Regional Court refused to grant his request, having regard to the fact that the 1991 Act only provided a legal basis for quashing judgments given prior to 31 December 1956, when the worst period of political repression ended, whereas the judgment in the applicant s case had been given in In 2001 the Ombudsman brought, on the applicant s behalf, a cassation appeal against the judgment given in 1959 before the Supreme Court. The Ombudsman argued that the judgment was in breach of the substantive provision forming the basis upon which the applicant had been convicted and sentenced. It was obvious that his conduct, consisting of disseminating leaflets criticising the Soviet Union s domination of Poland by placing them on walls in different places in his town, had not fulfilled the requirements of criminal conduct penalised by Article 23 paragraph 1 of the small criminal code. It was further argued that the acts committed by the accused had been motivated by his profound hostility towards the communist system and the communist authorities and should have been seen as acts of political opposition. They had been very irritating to the authorities, but this had not rendered them criminal. The courts had failed to establish that the leaflets had amounted to incitement to crime or violence, or that they had contained any praise of criminal acts. Furthermore, the courts had failed to indicate any concrete interests of the Polish State which could have been endangered by the leaflets. Moreover, it was unreasonable to consider that the view expressed about Poland s domination by the Soviet Union had been untrue, as it had been obvious at that time that this had indeed been the case. Hence, it was impossible to find that disseminating such a view amounted to
3 BACHOWSKI v. POLAND DECISION 3 disseminating untrue information. By a judgment of 13 June 2001 the Supreme Court allowed the Ombudsman s appeal, essentially sharing his views. It acquitted the applicant of the original offence, having found that he had not disseminated any false information but rather his legitimate views about the political system in place in 1959, and also held that he had not incited to violence or any unlawful acts. Consequently, it held that the applicant had not committed the criminal offence of which he had been convicted. Subsequently, the applicant instituted proceedings for compensation for detention which had lacked a legal basis, on the basis of Chapter 58 of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure. On 17 December 2004 the Katowice Regional Court awarded him compensation of 35,966 zlotys (PLN). The amount awarded was comprised of PLN 25,200 for non-pecuniary damage (zadośćuczynienie) caused by suffering and loss of life prospects occasioned by his deprivation of liberty, and PLN 10,766 for pecuniary damage (odszkodowanie). The court calculated the latter by taking the applicant s salary at the time of his arrest, multiplying it for the entire period of his deprivation of liberty and subtracting the average living costs which had been borne during that period by the State. The applicant appealed, challenging the method of calculation of the pecuniary damages and the amount of non-pecuniary damages. As to the former, he submitted that the method by which it had been calculated had defied equity and justice. The court had calculated it, essentially, by assessing the salary which the applicant could have been paid throughout the time of his imprisonment and by subsequently subtracting from it normal living costs during that time. The court had observed that the applicant had not been obliged to pay his living costs throughout this period because the State had borne them. This method, in the applicant s view, had entirely overlooked the essential aspects of compensation, namely indemnifying a wronged person and making good pecuniary damage inflicted by the manifestly unjustified and politically-motivated imprisonment imposed by the communist regime. The practice adopted by the courts of reducing awards of pecuniary damage due to victims of past political oppression reduced to nought the possibility for people who had been persecuted in the past for their political activities or ideas to obtain just satisfaction for their suffering at the hands of an oppressive political system. On 10 March 2006 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, finding that the method of calculation of pecuniary damages had been consistent with judicial practice as it stood at that time. On 25 April 2005 the applicant submitted a cassation appeal against the above-mentioned judgment, essentially reiterating the arguments which he had submitted to the appellate court.
4 4 BACHOWSKI v. POLAND DECISION On 9 February 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal as manifestly ill-founded, using a short formula normally used in such cases. B. Relevant domestic and international law 1. The 1991 Act The Law of 23 February 1991 on annulment of convictions of persons persecuted for activities aimed at achieving independence for Poland (Ustawa o uznaniu za nieważne orzeczeń wydanych wobec osób represjonowanych za działalność na rzecz niepodległego bytu Państwa Polskiego the 1991 Act ) sets out rules concerning the conditions under which certain politically-motivated convictions rendered from 1 January 1944 to 31 December 1956 can be declared null and void, and also provides for the State s civil liability for such convictions. Section 1 paragraph 1 of the 1991 Act provides, insofar as relevant: Convictions or other decisions rendered by the Polish judicial, prosecuting or extrajudicial authorities during the period... lasting from 1 January 1944 to 31 December 1956 shall be declared null and void if the offence with or of which the person concerned was charged or convicted related to activities undertaken by him or her with the aim of achieving independence for Poland, or if the decision in question was taken on the grounds that he had engaged in activity. The same applies to persons convicted of resisting the collectivisation of farm land and compulsory contributions of foodstuffs. Under section 2 of the 1991 Act, a regional court or, in cases concerning military offences, a regional military court, is competent to deal with requests lodged under section 3 of the 1991 Act. Section 3 states, insofar as relevant: 3. A party entitled to file an application under section 1 paragraph 1 shall be entitled to appeal against a decision on whether or not the original decision should be declared null and void. According to section 2 paragraph 1 in fine of this Law, a decision declaring the original conviction null and void shall be tantamount to a verdict of acquittal. If such a conviction is declared null and void, a victim of repression is entitled, under section 8 paragraph 1 of this Law, to compensation from the State Treasury for his wrongful conviction. 2. Chapter 58 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 58 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, entitled Compensation for unjustified conviction, pre-trial detention or arrest, stipulates that the State is liable for wrongful convictions or for unjustifiably depriving an individual of his liberty. Article 552 of the Code provides, in so far as relevant:
5 BACHOWSKI v. POLAND DECISION 5 1. An accused who, as a result of the reopening of the criminal proceedings against him or of lodging a cassation appeal, has been acquitted or resentenced under a more lenient substantive provision, shall be entitled to compensation from the State Treasury for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage which he has suffered in consequence of having served the whole or a part of the sentence imposed on him The entitlement to compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage shall also arise in the event of manifestly unjustified arrest or pre-trial detention. 3. Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ETS No. 117) Article This article provides that compensation shall be paid to a victim of a miscarriage of justice, on certain conditions. First, the person concerned has to have been convicted of a criminal offence by a final decision and to have suffered punishment as a result of such conviction. According to the definition contained in the explanatory report of the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments, a decision is final if, according to the traditional expression, it has acquired the force of res iudicata. This is the case when it is irrevocable, that is to say when no further ordinary remedies are available or when the parties have exhausted such remedies or have permitted the time-limit to expire without availing themselves of them. It follows therefore that a judgment by default is not considered as final as long as the domestic law allows the proceedings to be taken up again. Likewise, this article does not apply in cases where the charge is dismissed or the accused person is acquitted either by the court of first instance or, on appeal, by a higher tribunal. If, however, in one of the States in which such a possibility is provided for, the person has been granted leave to appeal after the normal time of appealing has expired, and his conviction is then reversed on appeal, then subject to the other conditions of the article, in particular the conditions described in paragraph 24 below, the article may apply. 23. Secondly, the article applies only where the person s conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned, in either case on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice - that is, some serious failure in the judicial process involving grave prejudice to the convicted person. Therefore, there is no requirement under the article to pay compensation if the conviction has been reversed or a pardon has been granted on some other ground. Nor does the article seek to lay down any rules as to the nature of the procedure to be applied to establish a miscarriage of justice. This is a matter for the domestic law or practice of the State concerned. The words or he has been pardoned have been included because under some systems of law pardon, rather than legal proceedings leading to the reversal of a conviction, may in certain cases be the appropriate remedy after there has been a final decision. 24. Finally, there is no right to compensation under this provision if it can be shown that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time was wholly or partly attributable to the person convicted.
6 6 BACHOWSKI v. POLAND DECISION 25. In all cases in which these preconditions are satisfied, compensation is payable according to the law or the practice of the State concerned. This does not mean that no compensation is payable if the law or practice makes no provision for such compensation. It means that the law or practice of the State should provide for the payment of compensation in all cases to which the article applies. The intention is that States would be obliged to compensate persons only in clear cases of miscarriage of justice, in the sense that there would be acknowledgement that the person concerned was clearly innocent. The article is not intended to give a right of compensation where all the preconditions are not satisfied, for example, where an appellate court had quashed a conviction because it had discovered some fact which introduced a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused and which had been overlooked by the trial judge. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention that his right to compensation for a manifestly unjustified conviction had been breached. This was so because the amount which he had ultimately received in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by his imprisonment had been ridiculously low and therefore degrading. In addition, the method by which the pecuniary damage had been calculated flew in the face of equity and justice. The court had calculated it, essentially, by assessing the salary which the applicant could have been paid throughout the time of his imprisonment and by subsequently subtracting from it normal living costs during that time. The courts had observed that the applicant had not been obliged to pay his living costs throughout this period because the State had borne them. This method, applied universally by the courts, had entirely overlooked essential aspects of compensation, namely of indemnifying a wronged person and making good pecuniary damage inflicted by the manifestly unjustified imprisonment imposed by the communist regime for purely political reasons. The practice adopted by the courts of reducing awards of pecuniary damages for victims of the communist regime, reduced to nought the possibility for people, including the applicant, who had been persecuted in the past for political activities or ideas, to obtain adequate and just satisfaction for their suffering at the hands of an oppressive political system. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the Supreme Court had dismissed his cassation appeal by a short formulaic statement which had failed to address essential aspects of the glaring lack of fairness and reasonableness of the judicial practice concerning the method of calculation of pecuniary damages which had been applied in his case. This had been in breach of his right of access to court and had made it impossible for the public to know the court s reasoning when dismissing the appeal. In a democratic society, the written grounds of judicial decisions
7 BACHOWSKI v. POLAND DECISION 7 should make it possible to identify the basis for and soundness of judgments. In the Polish system, as applied in his case, this had proved impossible. THE LAW 1. The applicant complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention that his right to compensation for a manifestly unjustified conviction had been breached, as the compensation which he had received for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by his imprisonment had been very low and had been calculated using an unfair method. Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 reads: When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed, or he has been pardoned, on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to the law or the practice of the State concerned, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him. The Court has first to determine whether it has temporal jurisdiction to examine the applicant s complaint under the provisions of Article 3 of Protocol No. 7. It observes that the aim of this provision is to confer the right to compensation on persons convicted as the result of a miscarriage of justice where such a conviction has been reversed by the domestic courts. It notes that, in the present case, the judgment by which the domestic authorities acknowledged that the applicant s conviction in 1959 had amounted to a miscarriage of justice and by which the applicant was acquitted was given in 2001, prior to 1 March 2003 when Protocol No. 7 came into force in respect of Poland. However, under the applicable domestic law, the aforementioned judgment was simply a necessary prerequisite for the institution of subsequent proceedings under Article 58 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by which a compensation claim arising from a judgment declared null and void is examined separately. The judgments given in the proceedings concerning the applicant s compensation claim were given on 17 December 2004, 10 March 2005 and 25 April 2005, after the entry into force of Protocol No. 7 in respect of Poland. It follows that this complaint is compatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 3 (see, Zhuravlev v. Russia, no. 5249/06, 17, 15 January 2009, and, a contrario, Matveyev v. Russia, no /02, 38, 3 July 2008). The Court must also decide whether Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 is applicable to the circumstances of the case ratione materiae. In this
8 8 BACHOWSKI v. POLAND DECISION connection, the Court refers to the Explanatory Report to Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 which provides as follows: [T]he article applies only where the person s conviction has been reversed... on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice - that is, some serious failure in the judicial process involving grave prejudice to the convicted person. Therefore, there is no requirement under the article to pay compensation if the conviction has been reversed or a pardon has been granted on some other ground. Nor does the article seek to lay down any rules as to the nature of the procedure to be applied to establish a miscarriage of justice. This is a matter for the domestic law or practice of the State concerned. In the present case, the Court observes that the 1991 Act put in place a specific legal scheme designed to examine the validity of judicial decisions given in the past by the communist authorities which may have had the purpose of repression of political opposition. Applied in conjunction with Chapter 58 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the 1991 Act allows victims of repression to seek compensation for unlawful deprivation of liberty. In the applicant s case this scheme could not be resorted to, given that it applied only to decisions given during the period in which the criminal law was habitually used to repress political opposition which period the legislature determined had finished at the end of However, in the applicant s case his conviction was reversed following a cassation appeal brought by the Ombudsman on his behalf. In those proceedings the Supreme Court recognised that the judgment given in 1959 in the criminal case against the applicant was based on an unacceptable interpretation and application of legal provisions. The Supreme Court held that the applicant had not committed the criminal offence of which he had been convicted and that the courts had misapplied the substantive criminal law. Subsequently, the courts which heard the compensation proceedings awarded compensation to the applicant. However, the Court observes that the applicant s criminal conviction was not quashed on the basis of any new or newly discovered facts within the meaning of Article 3 of Protocol No. 7. The applicant was granted compensation because the Supreme Court agreed with the arguments advanced by the Ombudsman in his appeal and noted in its judgment to the effect that the applicant s conviction of 1959 was based on an unacceptable legal assessment of his conduct. The Court concurs with the conclusions of the domestic courts and the legal view which they expressed in respect of the applicant s original conviction. It would be incompatible with both the tenets of the rule of law and respect for human rights if a criminal conviction given prior to the entry into force of the Convention and manifestly motivated by the goals of an oppressive political regime remained valid after the convicted person requested to have it reversed in accordance with the applicable provisions of domestic law.
9 BACHOWSKI v. POLAND DECISION 9 Nonetheless, in the present case the judgment concerned had not been issued on the basis of the omission or concealment of facts which could or should have been known to the court in 1959, or by the coming to light of new facts which occurred after that date and which would have been of such nature as to cast fundamental doubt on the soundnesss of the criminal conviction. The domestic courts acknowledged that the judgment given in 1959 was unacceptable because the applicable substantive criminal law had been seriously distorted and misapplied in that case. Hence, the acquittal of the applicant was due to a reassessment by the Supreme Court of the evidence which had already been used and known to the court in the original proceedings. In this context, the Court has had regard to the statements made in the Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 7 to the Convention according to which this provision is applicable only when the original conviction has been reversed because of a new or newly discovered fact showing conclusively that in the original proceedings there was a serious failure in the judicial process. The Court is of the view that it was the intention of the drafters of Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 to delineate the scope of the application of this provision in a narrow manner. The right to compensation was excluded in respect of reversals of conviction that were based on some other ground: than that related to new or newly discovered fact. Therefore the circumstances of the case, in the Court s view, do not fall within the scope of Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 of the Convention. Having regard to the foregoing and to the Explanatory Report to Article 3 of Protocol No. 7, the Court considers that the conditions for the applicability of Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 have not been complied with. It observes that the complaint does not give rise to issues under any other provision of the Convention or Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the Supreme Court had dismissed his cassation appeal by way of a short formulaic statement which had failed to address the essential points raised by him in his appeal. The Court reiterates that Article 6 1 of the Convention obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, but cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument. The extent to which this duty applies may vary according to the nature of the decision. It is moreover necessary to take into account, inter alia, the diversity of the submissions that a litigant may bring before the courts and the differences existing in the Contracting States with regard to statutory provisions, customary rules, legal opinion and the presentation and drafting of judgments. That is why the question
10 10 BACHOWSKI v. POLAND DECISION whether a court has failed to fulfil the obligation to state reasons, deriving from Article 6 1, can only be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see, among many other authorities, Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, 29, Series A no. 303-A; Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, 61, Series A no. 288; Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no /05, 1 September 2009). The Court reiterates that where the highest court in a country refuses to accept a case or where it examines a remedy on its merits and dismisses it on the basis that the legal grounds for amending or quashing a contested judgment are not made out, very limited reasoning may satisfy the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see Helle v. Finland, 19 December 1997, 55, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII; Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom, no /98, ECHR 2002-VIII; and, mutatis mutandis, Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), cited above). As regards the preliminary procedure for the examination and admission of cassation appeals, the Court has previously acknowledged that an appellate court is not required to give more detailed reasoning when it simply applies a specific legal provision to dismiss a cassation appeal as having no prospects of success, without further explanation (see Salé v. France, no /04, 17, 21 March 2006; Burg and Others v. France (dec.), no /02, ECHR 2003-II; and Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no /03, 41, ECHR ). Moreover, the Court has already examined similar complaints against Poland and declared them to be manifestly ill-founded(see Walczak v. Poland (dec.), no /01, 7 May 2002; and Guz v. Poland (dec.), no /02, 19 May 2005; Makuszewski v. Poland, no /05, 13 January 2009; see also, in respect of similar characteristics of civil proceedings, Wnuk v. Poland, cited above). The Court noted, in the context of proceedings conducted under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that it was open to the Supreme Court to dismiss a cassation appeal at a session held in camera, without the participation of the parties. Under the applicable provisions of criminal procedure that possibility was limited to cases in which the Supreme Court considered, having examined the written submissions of the parties, that the cassation appeal was manifestly ill-founded in that the alleged procedural shortcomings either had not occurred or had not been substantiated, or that the shortcomings complained of had not fallen within the ambit of procedural irregularities which could be relied on in the cassation appeal proceedings. The Court went on to observe that the issue for the Supreme Court s decision was whether the applicant had demonstrated the existence of arguable grounds, which would justify holding a hearing in the cassation proceedings (cf. Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, judgment 2 March 1987, Series A, no. 115, p. 22, 56). In that decision the Court rejected the complaint about unfairness of the proceedings before the Supreme Court,
11 BACHOWSKI v. POLAND DECISION 11 having concluded that in the light of the procedure designed for examination of the cassation appeal, seen as a whole, there had been no reason to doubt that the Supreme Court s decision had been based on a thorough assessment of the relevant factors. The Court observes that the applicant has not adduced any arguments to show that the circumstances of the present case differ in any respect from the cases against Poland referred to above or that they raise any new issues. Hence, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible. Fatoş Aracı Deputy Registrar Nicolas Bratza President
FOURTH 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 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 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 informationExplanatory Report to the Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
European Treaty Series - No. 117 Explanatory Report to the Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Strasbourg, 22.XI.1984 Introduction l. Protocol No.
More 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 informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF KESKINEN AND VELJEKSET KESKINEN OY v. FINLAND. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 5 June 2012 FINAL 05/09/2012
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF KESKINEN AND VELJEKSET KESKINEN OY v. FINLAND (Application no. 34721/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 5 June 2012 FINAL 05/09/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the
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 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 informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF GOŁAWSKI AND PISAREK v. POLAND. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 27 May 2014
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF GOŁAWSKI AND PISAREK v. POLAND (Application no. 32327/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 27 May 2014 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. GOŁAWSKI AND PISAREK
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF IVANOV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 5 July 2012
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF IVANOV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 41140/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 5 July 2012 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. IVANOV v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT 1 In
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 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 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 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 informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF VASSALLO v. MALTA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT. (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG. 6 November 2012 FINAL 06/02/2013
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF VASSALLO v. MALTA (Application no. 57862/09) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG 6 November 2012 FINAL 06/02/2013 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFOURTH SECTION. (Application no /95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 12 November 2002 FI AL 12/02/2003
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF PŁOSKI v. POLA D (Application no. 26761/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 12 November 2002 FI AL 12/02/2003 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF PŁOSKI v. POLAND. (Application no /95) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF PŁOSKI v. POLAND (Application no. 26761/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 12 November
More 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF PAPOYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no. 7205/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 11 January 2018
FIRST SECTION CASE OF PAPOYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 7205/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 11 January 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. PAPOYAN v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT 1
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF SUOMINEN v. FINLAND. (Application no /97) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF SUOMINEN v. FINLAND (Application no. 37801/97) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 July
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF HAJDUOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA. (Application no. 2660/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 30 November 2010 FINAL 28/02/2011
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF HAJDUOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA (Application no. 2660/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 30 November 2010 FINAL 28/02/2011 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF KAREMANI v. ALBANIA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 25 September 2018
SECOND SECTION CASE OF KAREMANI v. ALBANIA (Application no. 48717/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 September 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. KAREMANI v. ALBANIA JUDGMENT
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 informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF G.B. AND R.B. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 18 December 2012 FINAL 18/03/2013
THIRD SECTION CASE OF G.B. AND R.B. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application no. 16761/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 December 2012 FINAL 18/03/2013 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the
More informationSECOND SECTION. 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 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 informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF NIKITIN v. RUSSIA (Application no. 50178/99) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 20 July
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF ZAVORIN v. RUSSIA. (Application no /11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 15 January 2015
FIRST SECTION CASE OF ZAVORIN v. RUSSIA (Application no. 42080/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 January 2015 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. ZAVORIN v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 1
More 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 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 informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF PUHK v. ESTONIA. (Application no /00) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF PUHK v. ESTONIA (Application no. 55103/00) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 February
More 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 informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF PAUL AND BORODIN v. RUSSIA. (Application no /14) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 13 November 2018
THIRD SECTION CASE OF PAUL AND BORODIN v. RUSSIA (Application no. 28508/14) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 13 November 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. PAUL AND BORODIN v.
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF CUŠKO v. LATVIA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 December 2017
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF CUŠKO v. LATVIA (Application no. 32163/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 December 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. CUŠKO v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 1 In the
More informationSECOND SECTION. 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 informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF LAMANNA v. AUSTRIA. (Application no /95) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF LAMANNA v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 28923/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 July
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF MAGHERINI v. ITALY. (Application no /01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 1 June 2006
TESTO INTEGRALE THIRD SECTION CASE OF MAGHERINI v. ITALY (Application no. 69143/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 June 2006 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 THIRD SECTION. CASE OF ASAN RUSHITI v. AUSTRIA. (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 ASAN RUSHITI v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 28389/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 21
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF ROSEN PETKOV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 2 September 2010
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ROSEN PETKOV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 65417/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 2 September 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
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 informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF KULIKOWSKI v. POLAND (Application no. 18353/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 19 May
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF NEDYALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA. (Application no /05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 2 June 2015 FINAL 02/09/2015
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF NEDYALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (Application no. 44103/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 2 June 2015 FINAL 02/09/2015 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF POTCOAVĂ v. ROMANIA. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 17 December 2013
THIRD SECTION CASE OF POTCOAVĂ v. ROMANIA (Application no. 27945/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 December 2013 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 4539/11 by Nkechi Clareth AMEH and Others against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF BENJAMIN & WILSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF BENJAMIN & WILSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 28212/95) JUDGMENT
More informationSeite 1 von 8 In the case of Mauer v. Austria (1), The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
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 informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF PENEV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /04)
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF PENEV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 20494/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 January 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationTHE FACTS. A. The circumstances of the case. The facts of the case, as presented by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Giuseppe Calabrò, is an Italian national, born in 1950 and currently detained in Milan Prison. He was represented before the Court by Mr P. Sciretti, of the Milan Bar. A. The
More informationFINAL 06/06/2012 FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF CANI v. ALBANIA. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 6 March 2012
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF CANI v. ALBANIA (Application no. 11006/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 6 March 2012 FINAL 06/06/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be subject
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF KAREN POGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT (Merits) STRASBOURG. 31 March 2016
FIRST SECTION CASE OF KAREN POGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 62356/09) JUDGMENT (Merits) STRASBOURG 31 March 2016 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF GATT v. MALTA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG. 27 July 2010 FINAL 27/10/2010
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF GATT v. MALTA (Application no. 28221/08) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG 27 July 2010 FINAL 27/10/2010 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationHUDOC: List of Keywords Article by Article
The legal issues dealt with in each case are summarized in a list of Keywords, chosen from a thesaurus of terms taken (in most cases) directly from the text of the European Convention on Human Rights and
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF 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 informationand also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar, and Mr P.J. Mahoney, Deputy Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 28 September 1996 and 27 January 1997,
In the case of Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland (1), The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 24851/10 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,
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 informationRules of Procedure and Evidence*
Rules of Procedure and Evidence* Adopted by the Assembly of States Parties First session New York, 3-10 September 2002 Official Records ICC-ASP/1/3 * Explanatory note: The Rules of Procedure and Evidence
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 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 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 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 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 informationA. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC] /05 Judgment [GC]
Information Note on the Court s case-law No. 116 February 2009 A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC] - 3455/05 Judgment 19.2.2009 [GC] Article 5 Article 5-1-f Expulsion Extradition Indefinite detention
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF W. R. v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 26602/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 21 December
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 informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF LASKOWSKA v. POLAND. (Application no /01) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF LASKOWSKA v. POLAND (Application no. 77765/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 13 March
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 information... THE FACTS. A. The circumstances of the case. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
NUNES DIAS v. PORTUGAL DECISION 1 THE FACTS The applicant, Mr José Daniel Nunes Dias, is a Portuguese national, who was born in 1947 and lives in Carnaxide (Portugal). He was represented before the Court
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 SECOND SECTION. CASE OF KAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF KAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (Application no. 58756/00) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
More 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 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 informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF POTOMSKA AND POTOMSKI v. POLAND. (Application no /05) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG. 4 November 2014 FINAL
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF POTOMSKA AND POTOMSKI v. POLAND (Application no. 33949/05) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG 4 November 2014 FINAL 04/02/2015 This judgment has become final under Article 44
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF ROONEY v. IRELAND. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 31 October 2013
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ROONEY v. IRELAND (Application no. 32614/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 October 2013 This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. ROONEY v. IRELAND 1 In the case
More informationLimitation periods in claims for wrongful conviction, temporary arrest or detention. Magdalena Makieła 1
Limitation periods in claims for wrongful conviction, temporary arrest or detention by Magdalena Makieła 1 There is no justice system capable of avoiding errors, but there must be one to compensate them.
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF RAMISHVILI v. GEORGIA. (Application no /08)
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF RAMISHVILI v. GEORGIA (Application no. 48099/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 May 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. RAMISHVILI v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF IBROGIMOV v. RUSSIA. (Application no /12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 15 May 2018
THIRD SECTION CASE OF IBROGIMOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 32248/12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 May 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. IBROGIMOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 1
More informationFIRST SECTION DECISION
FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 13630/16 M.R. and Others against Finland The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 24 May 2016 as a Chamber composed of: Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
More informationFIRST SECTION 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 informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION. CASE OF STEVANOVIĆ v. SERBIA. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF STEVANOVIĆ v. SERBIA (Application no. 26642/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 9 October
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF CIUCCI v. ITALY. (Application no /01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 1 June 2006
TESTO INTEGRALE THIRD SECTION CASE OF CIUCCI v. ITALY (Application no. 68345/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 June 2006 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
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 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 COURT (CHAMBER) CASE OF PADOVANI v. ITALY (Application no. 13396/87) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 26 February
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF SUPERWOOD HOLDINGS PLC AND OTHERS v. IRELAND. (Application no. 7812/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG.
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF SUPERWOOD HOLDINGS PLC AND OTHERS v. IRELAND (Application no. 7812/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 8 September 2011 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article
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 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 AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 29612/09 by Valentina Kirillovna MARTYNETS against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5 November 2009
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009
COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 Court of Appeal Rules 2009 Arrangement of Rules COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 Arrangement of Rules Rule PART I - PRELIMINARY 7 1 Citation and commencement... 7 2 Interpretation....
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF PEČENKO v. SLOVENIA. (Application no. 6387/10) JUDGMENT
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF PEČENKO v. SLOVENIA (Application no. 6387/10) JUDGMENT This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in a judgment of 29 November 2016. STRASBOURG 4 December
More informationSTATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 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 SECOND SECTION. CASE OF MANCINI v. ITALY. (Application no /98) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF MANCINI v. ITALY (Application no. 44955/98) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 2 August
More information