Decisions 267 found

Inadmissible

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Inadmissible

Inadmissible

Inadmissible

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

The application concerns the length of the civil proceedings to determine whether the applicant’s state of health was compatible with detention.

The case concerns the length of civil proceedings regarding the applicant’s claim for a disability pension. On 18 December 2024, the applicant lodged an application for a disability pension, which was dismissed by the Social Security authorities on 20 March 2025. She appealed before the administrative authorities on 16 April 2025, which dismissed her claim on 4 June 2025. On 27 June 2025, she lodged a complaint with …

The applications concern economic restrictions (sanctions) imposed on the applicants under the Sanctions Act (see, for the context, M.S.L., TOV v. Ukraine, no. 18049/18, §§ 5-11, 16 October 2025) and the alleged unfairness of proceedings in which they sought to challenge them.

The application concerns proceedings related to the applicant’s custody over, maintenance of and contact with his two minor children, following his separation from their mother. Those proceeding were brought in 2020 and were partly finished by 2024. The proceedings concerning the applicant’s contact with his children, however, are still pending. On 10 February 2026 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s c…

The application concerns the final conviction of the applicant for selling drugs on a professional basis by taking into account a previous non-final conviction, which was later quashed and of which the applicant was ultimately acquitted.

The applications concern the dismissal of the applicants’ claims for compensation against the Greek State for damage allegedly caused by errors of judicial bodies. These dismissals followed a departure by the Supreme Administrative Court (‘SAC’) from its previous case-law in judgment no. 800/2021, with the result that such claims were no longer eligible for judicial review for an indefinite period, pending the adopti…

Inadmissible

Partly struck out of the list; Partly inadmissible

Struck out of the list

Inadmissible

Struck out of the list

No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings; Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance; Article 6-3 - Rights of defence; Article 6 - Right to a fair trial) Separate opinion(s) attached.

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings; Article 6-1 - Access to court)

The application concerns divergent domestic case-law in respect of claims for the payment of salary supplements for overtime, night work and work on public holidays.

The case concerns the applicant’s obligation to pay for heat supply services which were never provided to him. In 2009 the applicant got his flat disconnected from the district heating network after the competent local authority had approved his application to that effect. On 11 August 2009 the applicant and representatives of the aforementioned authority and the installation company signed a report confirming that t…

The application concerns the refusal, in 2026, to grant the applicant custody of his daughter, who has lived exclusively with him since 2019. The refusal was based on a 2021 Belarusian custody order favouring the mother.

The application concerns a decision by the Moldovan courts to establish the applicant’s child’s place of residence as being with the mother, allegedly in the absence of jurisdiction and despite a pre-existing shared custody arrangement in Germany.

Inadmissible

Inadmissible

Inadmissible

Inadmissible

Inadmissible

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings; Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

The application concerns the domestic courts’ refusal to grant the applicant custody of her children in the context of divorce proceedings on the basis of her alleged links with a terrorist organisation.

The applications concern the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against several members of the Turkish Armed Forces (“the TAF”), holding various ranks, in connection with their alleged involvement in the attempted coup on the night of 15 July 2016, on account of their deployment to and acts carried out at the Ankara 4th Main Jet Base Command (“the Akıncı base”). According to the domestic courts, the events fo…

The applications concern the applicants’ pre-placement detention in ordinary prisons pending their transfer to a suitable institution under an order for placement at the disposal of the Government with confinement in a custodial clinic (terbeschikkingstelling met bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege - “TBS”). Time-expired convict prisoners awaiting transfer to a suitable institution under a TBS order are colloquial…

The application concerns criminal proceedings in which the applicant was found guilty of, among other things, espionage against the institutions of the European Union under Article 261/A of the Criminal Code.

The application primarily concerns alleged shortcomings in the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of the applicants’ son.

Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 3 September 2026, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia.

Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 3 September 2026, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia.

The application concerns the applicant’s separation from her son. The applicant (mother) is undergoing separation proceedings before the Family Court and originally had care and custody of the couple’s child, K. The Child Protection Directorate (AA) was monitoring the situation as of 2019 as K was reluctant to see his father for supervised visits. However, on 18 July 2022 AA submitted that they should step aside from…

1. The applicant, Ms Elizabeta Imeraj, is an Albanian national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Tirana. She is represented before the Court by Mr G. Thuan Dit Dieudonné, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg, as well as by Mr S. Stavros and Mr T. Dalacouras, lawyers practising in Athens, Strasbourg and Rodopi, Greece.

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings; Article 6-1 - Access to court)

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Inadmissible

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings; Article 6-1 - Access to court)

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings; Article 6-1 - Access to court)

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings; Article 6-1 - Access to court)

The application concerns restrictions on the applicant’s contact with her children and the proceedings related to those restrictions.

The applications arise from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, following the latter’s assertion of jurisdiction over Crimea as of 27 February 2014 (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (dec.) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, § 335, 16 December 2020). They primarily concern administrative expulsion orders and other restrictions imposed on the applicants by the Russian authorities in Crimea.

The applicants are judges of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland. The applications concern the criminal investigation into the applicants’ alleged wrongdoings within their judicial duties and the proceedings aimed at lifting their judicial immunity. The case raises issues under Articles 6, 8, 10 and 18 of the Convention.

The applicant was a police officer. He was prosecuted for, inter alia, conspiracy to commit a felony and drug possession (criminal case no. 15956/08). The Assize Court dismissed the case on account of the prosecution’s failure to establish a prima facie case. It considered the evidence against him was insufficient and incapable of establishing the elements of the offenses with which he had been accused. Pending the c…

The application concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant, who is the former Special Public Prosecutor (for the background to the establishment of the Special Public Prosecutor’s Office, see Taleski v. North Macedonia (dec.), no. 77796/17 and five other applications, §§ 4-10, 24 January 2023).

The applicants are police officers against whom criminal and disciplinary proceedings were initiated in 2009 for, inter alia, corruption. In the meantime, the applicants were suspended from office, placed in detention for five days, and received reduced salaries. According to the applicants, the decision to institute criminal proceedings against the applicants was taken by the Deputy Attorney General at the time, not…

The case concerns the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by the police during his arrest and the effectiveness of the investigation in that respect.

Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria; (Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded

Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria; (Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings; Article 6-1 - Fair hearing); Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficent (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage; Pecuniary damage; Just satisfaction)

Inadmissible

Inadmissible

The application concerns the domestic courts’ determination of the applicant’s custody rights in respect of his minor son, born in in August 2018.

On 1 January 2017 the applicant started working in a water supply company (“the Company”) as a Deputy Head of a Technical Directorate. On 29 March 2017 the Company notified the applicant that his employment contract in that position would be terminated, while offering him the position of the head of another division. The applicant marked “I agree” on that notice.