Judgments of 7 March 2017
|
|
- Rosemary Harris
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 078 (2017) Judgments of 7 March 2017 The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing nine judgments 1 : six Chamber judgments are summarised below; separate press releases have been issued for two other Chamber judgments in the cases of Polyakova and Others v. Russia (applications nos /09, 35845/11, 45694/13, and 59747/14) and V.K. v. Russia (no /13); one Committee judgment, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, can be consulted on Hudoc and does not appear in this press release. The judgments below are available only in English. R.L. and Others v. Denmark (application no /11) The applicants, M (the first applicant), F (the second applicant), L, and S, are Danish nationals who were born in 1965, 1951, 2004, and 2006 respectively and live in Copenhagen. The case concerned the paternity of the second applicant in relation to L and S. The first and second applicants married in In 2004, the first applicant gave birth to a boy, L. As the second applicant was married to the first applicant, he was registered as L s father. In 2005 the first and second applicants legally separated. However, they continued to legally cohabit until June In October 2006 the first applicant gave birth to another boy, S. Although the second applicant no longer lived with the first applicant, and had had no sexual contact with her since 2004, he submitted a signed declaration to the State Administration for Greater Copenhagen, co-signed by the first applicant, which stated that together they would take care of and be responsible for S. Consequently, the second applicant was registered as the father of S. Without the knowledge of the second applicant, between 2003 and 2008 the first applicant had been having a relationship with another man, E. When that relationship ended in October 2008, the first applicant told the second applicant that E was the biological father of S and probably also of L. The applicants then submitted a formal request that both paternity cases be reopened in order to formally establish E s fatherhood of the children. The request was refused by the State Administration. The applicants then brought their request before the City Court. The reopening was opposed before the court by E. The children L and S were represented by counsel, who also opposed the reopening. The first and second applicants submitted that E s fatherhood and responsibility for the children should be recognised. E stated that he did not wish to take on the role of being the children s father. In February 2010, the City Court in Copenhagen decided to reopen the paternity cases in relation to both children, finding that this would be in the overall interests of the children and the union of the family. E appealed to the High Court of Eastern Denmark. In November 2010 the High Court refused 1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber judgment s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:
2 to reopen the paternity cases. Subsequently, the second applicant took a DNA test, which established that he was not the father of either L or S. The first and second applicants requested leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, but this was refused in January Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained that the evidence submitted before the domestic courts had shown that E. had been the biological father of L and S, and that therefore the paternity cases should have been reopened, as found by the City Court. No violation of Article 8 Baczúr v. Hungary (no. 8263/15) The applicant, István Baczúr, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Nagykozár (Hungary). Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention, he complained of a significant decrease in the benefit he had received on account of his reduced capacity to work. Following the enactment of Act no. CXCI of 2011 on the Benefits Granted to Persons with Reduced Work Capacity, Mr Baczúr applied for disability benefit. He had previously been receiving a net sum of HUF 156,585 per month (approximately EUR 510) as a rehabilitation allowance, on account of a 50% loss of his capacity to work. Following an assessment under the new law, his state of health was rated at 46%, and from 1 July 2012 onwards he was provided with only HUF 41,850 per month (later raised to HUF 55,800 - approximately EUR 140). His attempts to challenge the decision in court failed. The new rate of payment lasted until 2014, when a further legislative amendment made Mr Baczúr entitled to a payment of HUF 159,100 per month (approximately EUR 520), retroactively applicable as of 1 January Mr Baczúr complained that the drastic decrease in his monthly disability allowance, which had prevailed between 1 July 2012 and 31 December 2013, had amounted to an unjustified deprivation of possessions in view of the fact that his underlying medical condition had not changed. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: 5,000 euros (EUR) (pecuniary damage), EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 9,000 (costs and expenses) Stanka Mirković and Others v. Montenegro (nos /15, 33785/15, 34369/15 and 34371/15) The applicants, Stanka Mirković, Darinka Marjanović, Igor Mirković, and Oliver Mirković, were born in 1939, 1931, 1961, and 1963 respectively and live in Belgrade and Pljevlja (Montenegro). Stanka Mirković and Oliver Mirković are Montenegrin nationals; Darinka Marjanović and Igor Mirković are Serbian nationals. The case concerned the length of civil proceedings that they had all been involved in. In December 2004 Igor and Oliver Mirković filed a request with the Restitution and Compensation Commission, seeking compensation for land expropriated from their legal predecessor in Ms Mirković and Ms Marjanović made statements waiving their rights in respect of the property. On 28 August 2005 the Commission ruled in favour of Igor and Oliver Mirković. However, in October 2005 the Ministry of Finance quashed that decision upon an appeal filed by the Supreme State Prosecutor. In April 2006 the Commission issued a new decision, awarding compensation to all of the applicants on the grounds that they were all heirs of the legal 2
3 predecessor. In so doing, it examined the waiver statements of Ms Mirković and Ms Marjanović made in 2005, but considered that they were not valid. Between June 2006 and March 2014 the competent second-instance administrative body (firstly the Ministry of Finance and later the Appeals Commission) and the Administrative Court, before which the case was first brought in 2006, issued sixteen decisions on the matter in total (eight decisions each). The Administrative Court never ruled on the merits of the initial compensation request, but instead quashed or upheld the quashing of the first-instance decision of the Commission. Its last decision was issued in March 2014, in substance remitting the case once again to the Commission. The Supreme Court upheld the Administrative Court s decision in June The applicants each lodged a constitutional appeal. In October 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants constitutional appeals as premature, given that the Commission was still considering their compensation request. However, in December 2015 the court issued another decision, dismissing the applicants constitutional appeals. On 31 March 2016, at a hearing before the Commission, the proceedings were adjourned at the applicants request until this Court ruled on their applications. Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complained of the overall length of the administrative proceedings, owing to the case being repeatedly remitted. Violation of Article 6 1 Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,560 to Oliver Mirković and EUR 1,560 jointly to Stanka Mirković, Darinka Marjanović and Igor Mirković (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 625 to all four applicants jointly (costs and expenses) Kamenov v. Russia (no /15) The applicant, Murat Kamenov, is a Kazakh national who was born in 1968 and lives in Zhangala, Kazakhstan. The case concerned his exclusion from Russia. In 2000 Mr Kamenov moved from Kazakhstan to Russia, where he married a Russian citizen. The couple had two daughters, and settled in Slantseviy Rudnik in the Saratov Region. Mr Kamenov lived in Russia under regularly extended temporary residence permits. In August 2013 the Department of the Federal Migration Service granted him a three-year residence permit, which was valid until August However, upon returning from a visit to Kazakhstan in April 2014, Mr Kamenov was denied re-entry into Russia. He was informed that he was banned from re-entering Russia until January 2030, on the basis of a report from the Federal Security Service. Mr Kamenov lodged an appeal against the exclusion order, complaining that the measure had adversely affected his family life. The case was examined by the Saratov Regional Court. According to the court it was able to review the FSS report which served as the basis for the exclusion. However, neither Mr Kamenov nor his representative were allowed to see the report, and they were refused information about why the exclusion had been put in place. When asked about the basis for the ban, the FSS s representatives replied that the reasons could not be disclosed in the interests of State security, and that the information was a state secret. The Regional Court upheld Mr Kamenov s exclusion, citing the threat to national security, and stating that the public interest prevailed over the private interest of Mr Kamenov. Mr Kamenov appealed to the Administrative Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. However, in December 2014 the court upheld the decision made at first-instance. 3
4 Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for family life), Mr Kamenov complained that the exclusion order and the re-entry ban imposed on him had violated the right to respect for his family life. Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: EUR 12,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,390 (costs and expenses) Cerovšek and Božičnik v. Slovenia (nos /12 and 68949/12) The applicants, Silvo Cerovšek and Štefan Božičnik, are Slovenian nationals who were born in 1962 and 1946 respectively and live in Bizeljsko and Artiče (Slovenia). The case concerned the fairness of their criminal convictions for theft. The applicants were both charged with separate instances of theft by cutting down and taking trees from a forest belonging to another person, and appropriating the wood. They were both tried by a professional judge, A.K., sitting as a single judge. The judge found both Mr Cerovšek and Mr Božičnik guilty in oral verdicts delivered in June and July The applicants were ordered to pay the victims compensation, and sentenced to six and seven months imprisonment, respectively, which in both cases was suspended for three years. Both applicants gave notice of their intention to appeal. This gave rise to an obligation on the part of Judge A.K. to draw up written grounds for her verdicts. However, the judge then retired. In 2010 two different judges delivered written grounds for A.K. s original verdicts, setting out the reasons for the defendants conviction and sentence. The applicants appealed against the judgments, complaining that the fairness of the proceedings had been undermined by the fact that the grounds for their convictions had been provided by judges who had not participated in the trial and had not convicted them. However, the appeals were both dismissed by the Ljubljana Higher Court as were further applications for the protection of legality made by the applicants to the Supreme Court. The applicants made constitutional complaints about the judgments to the Constitutional Court, but the court refused to admit these on 3 April Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants complained that their right to a fair trial had been violated because the reasons for the convictions had been given by judges who had not reached the verdict and had not participated in the trial. Violation of Article 6 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 each Mr Cerovšek and Mr Božičnik (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 2,500 each (costs and expenses) Döner and Others v. Turkey (no /02) The applicants are 20 Turkish nationals born between 1953 and At the time of the events giving rise to the present application, the applicants lived in Istanbul and their children attended different public elementary schools. The case concerned the criminal proceedings brought against them for aiding and abetting the PKK (Workers Party of Kurdistan), after the applicants had submitted petitions requesting that their children be taught in Kurdish. In December 2001, all but one of the applicants submitted petitions to the Bağcılar, Esenler and Kadıköy Education Directorates with a request for their children to be provided with education in Kurdish. It appears that similar petitions were submitted by other parents of Kurdish origin at the time. Early on the morning of 13 January 2002 police officers from the Anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate carried out a simultaneous search of the properties of 40 people, 4
5 including the applicants, on the grounds that the petitions they had submitted had been made on the instructions of the PKK. No illegal material was found in the applicants homes, but they were all arrested and taken into police custody. When questioned, two of the applicants denied sending the petition. The remaining applicants admitted sending the petition but denied any affiliation with the PKK, stating that their motive had been the desire for their children to be taught in Kurdish. On 17 January 2002 all the applicants were released, after a hearing before a judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. The public prosecutor filed an objection about the decision. On the following day the Istanbul State Security Court upheld the public prosecutor s objection in respect of seven of the applicants, and ordered their arrest. Three of the applicants were arrested on 19 January, and held in custody until a court ordered their release on 12 February In the meantime, the public prosecutor issued an indictment against 38 suspects, including all but one of the applicants, accusing them of aiding and abetting an armed organisation. The accused were said to have assisted the PKK by participating in its strategy of carrying out non-violent acts of civil disobedience, aimed at leaving the State in a difficult position in the international arena. In May 2003 the Istanbul Security Court acquitted all of the accused, because on the facts none of the elements of the crime had been present in their actions and there was no other evidence to support the allegations brought against them. The applicants complained in particular under Article 5 3 and 4 (right to liberty) that they had not been brought promptly before a judge, and that there had not been any effective remedies to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest and detention. They also complained under Article 5 5 that they had had no right to compensation under domestic law in respect of those complaints. Lastly, relying in substance on Article 10 (freedom of expression), they maintained that they had been subjected to criminal proceedings for using their constitutional right to file a petition, despite the absence of any provisions in domestic law criminalising such conduct. Violation of Article 5 3, 4 and 5 in respect of all the applicants Violation of Article 10 in respect of all the applicants, except Yılmaz Yavuz Just satisfaction: EUR 6,500 to Yılmaz Yavuz and EUR 10,000 to each of the 19 other applicants (nonpecuniary damage), and EUR 3,000 to the 20 applicants jointly (costs and expenses) This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on To receive the Court s press releases, please subscribe here: or follow us on Press contacts echrpress@echr.coe.int tel: Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: ) Denis Lambert (tel: ) Inci Ertekin (tel: ) George Stafford (tel: ) The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. 5
Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey. Karaivanova and Mileva v. Bulgaria (application no /05)
issued by the Registrar of the Court Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 12 Chamber judgments 1 none
More informationJudgments of 16 June 2015
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 201 (2015) 16.06.2015 Judgments of 16 June 2015 The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing ten Chamber judgments 1 : seven are summarised
More informationJudgments concerning Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Turkey
issued by the Registrar of the Court Judgments concerning Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Turkey The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine Chamber judgments 1, none
More informationJudgments concerning Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania and Turkey
issued by the Registrar of the Court Judgments concerning Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania and Turkey The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments
More informationJudgments concerning Hungary, Italy, Latvia, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, and Turkey
issued by the Registrar of the Court Judgments concerning Hungary, Italy, Latvia, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, and Turkey The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing
More informationJudgments of 6 September 2016
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 277 (2016) 06.09.2016 Judgments of 6 September 2016 The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing seven judgments 1. six Chamber judgments are
More informationJudgments of 21 November 2017
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 351 (2017) 21.11.2017 Judgments of 21 November 2017 The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 15 judgments 1 : 11 Chamber judgments are
More informationJudgments of 17 May Fürst-Pfeifer v. Austria (applications nos /10 and 52340/10)
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 159 (2016) 17.05.2016 Judgments of 17 May 2016 The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing ten judgments 1 : six Chamber judgments are summarised
More informationJudgments of 8 November
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 354 (2016) 08.11.2016 Judgments of 8 November The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 20 judgments 1 : seven Chamber judgments are summarised
More informationJudgments of 15 September 2015
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 275 (2015) 15.09.2015 Judgments of 15 September 2015 The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 11 judgments 1 : ten Chamber judgments are
More informationJudgments of 31 January 2017
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 045 (2017) 31.01.2017 Judgments of 31 January 2017 The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing seven judgments 1 : six Chamber judgments are
More informationJudgments concerning Croatia, Greece, Monaco, Russia, Slovenia and Ukraine
issued by the Registrar of the Court Judgments concerning Croatia, Greece, Monaco, Russia, Slovenia and Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 16 judgments,
More informationJudgments of 28 November 2017
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 361 (2017) 28.11.2017 Judgments of 28 November 2017 The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 28 judgments 1 : seven Chamber judgments are
More informationJudgments of 22 September Koutsoliontos and Pantazis v. Greece (applications nos /09 and 54590/09)*
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 285 (2015) 22.09.2015 Judgments of 22 September 2015 The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing nine Chamber judgments 1, which are summarised
More informationJudgments concerning Hungary, Latvia, Malta, the Republic of Moldova, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and Turkey
issued by the Registrar of the Court Judgments concerning Hungary, Latvia, Malta, the Republic of Moldova, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and Turkey The European Court of Human Rights has today notified
More informationFirst-time asylum seeker was not given effective remedy under fast-track procedure for examination of his case
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 043 (2012) 02.02.2012 First-time asylum seeker was not given effective remedy under fast-track procedure for examination of his case In today s Chamber judgment
More informationDetention for 27 days in personal space of less than 3 square metres was inhuman and degrading treatment
issued by the Registrar of the Court Detention for 27 days in personal space of less than 3 square metres was inhuman and degrading treatment In today s Grand Chamber judgment 1 in the case of Muršić v.
More informationJudgments of 11 October 2016
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 322 (2016) 11.10.2016 Judgments of 11 October 2016 The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 28 judgments 1 : nine Chamber judgments are
More informationJudgments concerning Austria, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom
issued by the Registrar of the Court Judgments concerning Austria, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom ECHR 244 (2012) 12.06.2012 The
More informationJudgments of 17 July SA Patronale hypothécaire v. Belgium (application no /09)*
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 258 (2018) 17.07.2018 Judgments of 17 July 2018 The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 16 judgments 1 : nine Chamber judgments are summarised
More informationForthcoming judgments
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 113 (2014) 23.04.2014 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing seven judgments on Tuesday 29 April 2014 and three
More informationRussian authorities failed to account for air raid killing five people and destroying Chechen village
issued by the Registrar of the Court no. 273 29.03.2011 Russian authorities failed to account for air raid killing five people and destroying Chechen village In today s Chamber judgment in the case Esmukhambetov
More informationForthcoming judgments
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 242 (2013) 27.08.2013 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing ten judgments on Tuesday 3 September 2013 and three
More informationForthcoming judgments and decisions
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 086 (2018) 07.03.2018 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing nine judgments on Tuesday 13 March 2018
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 informationForthcoming judgments
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 096 (2013) 03.04.2013 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 11 judgments on Tuesday 9 April 2013 and 11 on Thursday
More informationJudgments concerning Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, and Turkey
issued by the Registrar of the Court Judgments concerning Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, and Turkey The European Court of Human Rights has today
More informationOverview ECHR
Overview 1959-2017 ECHR This document has been prepared by the Public Relations Unit of the Court, and does not bind the Court. It is intended to provide basic general information about the way the Court
More informationForthcoming judgments
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 060 (2014) 04.03.2014 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing six judgments on Tuesday 11 March 2014 and 13 on Thursday
More informationOverview ECHR
Overview 1959-2016 ECHR This document has been prepared by the Public Relations Unit of the Court, and does not bind the Court. It is intended to provide basic general information about the way the Court
More informationJudgments concerning Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Russia and Turkey
issued by the Registrar of the Court Judgments concerning Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Russia and Turkey ECHR 282 (2012) 03.07.2012 The European Court of Human Rights has
More informationForthcoming judgments and decisions
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 314 (2017) 26.10.2017 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing nine judgments on Tuesday 31 October
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 informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF POTCOAVĂ v. ROMANIA. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 17 December 2013
THIRD SECTION CASE OF POTCOAVĂ v. ROMANIA (Application no. 27945/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 December 2013 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF 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 informationCases referred to the Grand Chamber
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 382 (2012) 17.10.2012 Cases referred to the Grand Chamber At its last meeting (24 September 2012), the Grand Chamber panel of five judges decided to refer two
More informationLAW ON THE COURT OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Strasbourg, 6 December 2000 Restricted CDL (2000) 106 Eng.Only EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) LAW ON THE COURT OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 GENERAL
More informationJudgments 1 concerning Austria, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Greece, the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Romania and Turkey
issued by the Registrar of the Court Judgments 1 concerning Austria, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Greece, the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Romania and Turkey ECHR 165 (2012) 17.04.2012 The European
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 informationEUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Press release issued by the Registrar
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 273 31.3.2009 Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgments concerning Finland, Hungary, Moldova, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Turkey The European Court
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 37187/03 and 18577/08 Iaroslav SARUPICI against the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine and Anatolie GANEA and Aurelia GHERSCOVICI against the Republic of Moldova The
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN 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 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 informationForthcoming judgments
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 368 (2012) 08.10.2012 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 13 judgments on Tuesday 16 October 2012 and nine on
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 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 informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION. CASE OF KASTELIC v. CROATIA. (Application no /00) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF KASTELIC v. CROATIA (Application no. 60533/00) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 July
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF POPNIKOLOV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /02)
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF POPNIKOLOV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 30388/02) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG 25 March 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationTHE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN FACTS & FIGURES
THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN FACTS & FIGURES 2017 This document has been prepared by the Public Relations Unit of the Court, and does not bind the Court. It is intended to provide basic general
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF DÖNER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY. (Application no /02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 March 2017
SECOND SECTION CASE OF DÖNER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (Application no. 29994/02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 March 2017 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 FIRST SECTION. CASE OF OHLEN v. DENMARK. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF OHLEN v. DENMARK (Application no. 63214/00) JUDGMENT (Striking out) STRASBOURG
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 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 informationJudgments concerning Germany, Greece, Hungary, Moldova, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Turkey and Ukraine
issued by the Registrar of the Court Judgments concerning Germany, Greece, Hungary, Moldova, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Turkey and Ukraine ECHR 222 (2011) 03.11.2011 The
More informationPress release issued by the Registrar. Chamber judgment 1. Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia (application no /04)
005 07.01.2010 Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgment 1 Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia (application no. 25965/04) CYPRIOT AND RUSSIAN AUTHORITIES FAILED TO PROTECT 20-YEAR OLD RUSSIAN CABARET
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 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 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 informationEuropean Court of Human Rights. Questions & Answers
European Court of Human Rights Questions & Answers Questions & Answers What is the European Court of Human Rights? These questions and answers have been prepared by the Registry of the Court. The document
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF RANGELOV AND STEFANOV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /04)
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF RANGELOV AND STEFANOV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 23240/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 April 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
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 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 informationEUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Press release issued by the Registrar. CHAMBER JUDGMENT SCHLUMPF v. SWITZERLAND
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 007 9.1.2009 Press release issued by the Registrar CHAMBER JUDGMENT SCHLUMPF v. SWITZERLAND The European Court of Human Rights yesterday notified in writing its Chamber judgment
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 7332/10 by Josef HAVELKA against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 20 September 2011 as
More 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 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 FIRST SECTION. CASE OF LUCHKINA v. RUSSIA. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF LUCHKINA v. RUSSIA (Application no. 3548/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 April
More informationInterim Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)429 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Ilgar Mammadov against Azerbaijan
MINISTERS DEPUTIES Resolutions CM/ResDH(2017)429 7 December 2017 Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)429 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Ilgar Mammadov against Azerbaijan (Adopted
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 informationPress release issued by the Registrar. CHAMBER JUDGMENT SEGERSTEDT-WIBERG AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 326 6.6.2006 Press release issued by the Registrar CHAMBER JUDGMENT SEGERSTEDT-WIBERG AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF UKRAINE-TYUMEN v. UKRAINE. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION CASE OF UKRAINE-TYUMEN v. UKRAINE (Application no. 22603/02) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF KAREN POGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG.
FIRST SECTION CASE OF KAREN POGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 62356/09) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG 29 March 2018 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article
More informationJudgments of 28 June 2016
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 226 (2016) 28.06.2016 Judgments of 28 June 2016 The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 14 judgments 1. 12 Chamber judgments are summarised
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no 25748/15 Kemal HAMESEVIC against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16 May 2017 as a Chamber composed of: Robert Spano, President,
More 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 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 informationFIRST SECTION DECISION
FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 13630/16 M.R. and Others against Finland The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 24 May 2016 as a Chamber composed of: Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF ŠEBALJ v. CROATIA. (Application no. 4429/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 28 June 2011
FIRST SECTION CASE OF ŠEBALJ v. CROATIA (Application no. 4429/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 28 June 2011 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may
More informationEUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Press release issued by the Registrar. CHAMBER JUDGMENT FREROT v. FRANCE
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 406 12.6.2007 Press release issued by the Registrar CHAMBER JUDGMENT FREROT v. FRANCE The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment
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 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 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 informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF YILDIZ v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 37295/97) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 October
More informationForthcoming judgments
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 075 (2014) 19.03.2014 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 33 judgments on Tuesday 25 March 2014 and five on Thursday
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. Communicated on 25 August Application no /14 Ahmad ASSEM HASSAN ALI against Denmark lodged on 27 March 2014
SECOND SECTION Application no. 25593/14 Ahmad ASSEM HASSAN ALI against Denmark lodged on 27 March 2014 Communicated on 25 August 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Ahmad Assem Hassan Ali, is a Jordanian
More informationDraft Statute for an International Criminal Court 1994
Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court 1994 Text adopted by the Commission at its forty-sixth session, in 1994, and submitted to the General Assembly as a part of the Commission s report covering
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION CASE OF BRØSTED v. DENMARK (Application no. 21846/04) JUDGMENT (Friendly settlement)
More informationApplication Number. English Case Title Date of Judgment Date of Final
Pending cases against Finland Application English Case Title Date of Date of Meeting Meeting Number Judgment Final Number Section Judgment 46602/99 A.H. v. Finland 10/05/2007 10/08/2007 1013 2 22508/02
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 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 informationForthcoming judgments
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 297 (2013) 16.10.2013 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 19 judgments on Tuesday 22 October 2013 and 16 on Thursday
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 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 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 informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION. CASE OF TÜM HABER SEN AND ÇINAR v. TURKEY
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF TÜM HABER SEN AND ÇINAR v. TURKEY (Application no. 28602/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF MIHELJ v. SLOVENIA. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 15 January 2015 FINAL 15/04/2015
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF MIHELJ v. SLOVENIA (Application no. 14204/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 January 2015 FINAL 15/04/2015 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be subject
More 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 informationForthcoming judgments
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 364 (2012) 03.10.2012 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 39 judgments on Tuesday 9 October 2012 and two on Thursday
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 information