Decisions 565 found

The applicant, a former judge, was convicted for bribery. The central pieces of evidence in the basis of his conviction were obtained through secret surveillance measures.

The applicant is an Afghan national who was born in 1992. The application concerns the applicant’s threatened removal from Türkiye.

The applications concern disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (the “CJP”) on the applicants – who are judges and a prosecutor – for statements made on various platforms, including social media, on the grounds that their remarks constituted “behaviour undermining the respect and trust inherent in their official status.”

This case concerns the unavailability of marriage, civil partnership or any other form of legal recognition and protection for same-sex couples in Slovakia.

The applications concern access to court of bankruptcy administrators against decisions relieving them of their duty in specific proceedings and/or decisions removing them from the list of bankruptcy administrators.

The applicants are judges of various ordinary courts. Between 2021 and 2023 the then Minister of Justice appointed them to the positions of President or Vice-President of their respective courts for fixed terms (see appended table for details).

The application concerns the inability of a married couple to communicate by telephone while both were detained in separate prisons located in different provinces.

The case concerns the continued freezing of the applicant’s assets and the continued retention of seized property for legal proceedings, raising issues under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

La requête concerne les blessures potentiellement mortelles subies par le requérant à la suite du tir d’une grenade lacrymogène par des policiers lors d’une manifestation, ainsi que le défaut allégué d’enquête pénale effective à cet égard.

The applicant, an Afghan national born in 2005, entered Türkiye with her family in 2008. At the material time, all family members were registered as refugees with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). In 2018, following the transfer of refugee status determination procedures to the domestic authorities, the applicant’s refugee status was revoked. Her subsequent application for international prote…

The applicant is a Tajik national who allegedly fled Tajikistan and entered Türkiye in 2012. He claims to face a risk of persecution in his country of origin due to his religious convictions, specifically his status as an Islamic scholar educated abroad.

The applicant is a Ukrainian politician and businessman. In November 2019 an article “On smuggling with “a smuggler”: the first big interview with [Mr F.]” was published at the website of a privately owned news agency. A businessman, Mr F., alleged that the applicant had been involved in organising smuggling and in other corruption-related unlawful activities within the customs authorities. The negative statements co…

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).

The application concerns an alleged unfairness of administrative proceedings brought by the applicant against a military unit.

The application concerns complaints under Articles 6 § 1, 8 and 13 of the Convention regarding excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the absence of an effective remedy to that effect.

The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s Subject matter and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC.

The application concerns the allegedly inadequate medical care provided to the applicant’s father during his imprisonment, and his death in custody at the age of 59.

Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 17 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. It is to be noted that the issue of jurisdiction over the area where the incidents giving rise to the complaints allegedly took place has been examined and decided by the Grand Cha…

Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 17 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. It is to be noted that the issue of jurisdiction over the area where the incidents giving rise to the complaints allegedly took place has been examined and decided by the Grand Cha…

Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 17 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. It is to be noted that the issue of jurisdiction over the area where the incidents giving rise to the complaints allegedly took place has been examined and decided by the Grand Cha…

L’affaire concerne la restriction alléguée du droit d’accès à un tribunal et l’atteinte alléguée du droit au respect de la vie privée du requérant. Le 17 juillet 2022, la voiture louée par le requérant fut contrôlée par une patrouille de police à l’entrée de Panagyurishte. Le véhicule fut fouillé. Ensuite, le requérant fut fouillé devant les autres passagers - son fils mineur, sa compagne et le conducteur du véhicule…

Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 17 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. It is to be noted that the issue of jurisdiction over the area where the incidents giving rise to the complaints allegedly took place has been examined and decided by the Grand Cha…

Struck out of the list

Inadmissible

Inadmissible

Inadmissible

Inadmissible

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

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

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

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

Inadmissible

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Inadmissible

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 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect); Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life); Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage; Just satisfaction)

Struck out of the list

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect); Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment; Inhuman treatment; Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect); Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage; Just satisfaction)

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

The application concerns the termination of the applicant’s mandate as member of Parliament following his conviction and sentence.

On 18 May 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of assault occasioning grievous bodily harm and remanded in custody. He was subsequently convicted and on 16 February 2006 was sentenced to indeterminate imprisonment for the public protection (“IPP sentence”) with a minimum term of two years 91 days.

The application concerns the allegedly unlawful, politically motivated and disproportionate demolition of a building constructed by the first applicant (a company owned by the second and third applicants), following a finding by the domestic authorities that the building had been built in violation of the construction permit (for further details see FINE DOO and Others v. North Macedonia (dec.), no. 37948/13, §§ 4-18…

La requête concerne la condamnation pour diffamation du requérant, conducteur d’un programme radiophonique à diffusion locale. Certaines de ses émissions firent l’objet de plaintes déposées par des particuliers, mentionnés par le requérant, qui se plaignaient de propos « offensants, moqueurs et injurieux ». Par arrêt de la cour d’appel de Bari du 12 décembre 2014, le requérant fut condamné à un an et deux mois d’empr…

Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home; Respect for private life)

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

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment; Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect); Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

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

The application concerns a disciplinary sanction, namely dismissal, imposed on the applicant on account of political statements that he had made against the ruling party, the Justice and Development Party (the AKP), in the context of the 2014 elections.

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 mainly concern the pre-trial detention of the applicants, who were all judges or prosecutors at the material time, on suspicion of membership of FETÖ/PDY (an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as “Fetullahist Terror Organisation / Parallel State Structure”), in the aftermath of the attempted coup d’état which took place on 15 July 2016.

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 defamation proceedings brought by the applicant (a businessman and, from 2006 to 2012, Kyiv mayor) against O., a private online media outlet, and Mr K., a former Member of Ukrainian Parliament (from 2007 to 2012).

The application concerns the alleged failure of the domestic authorities to conduct an effective criminal investigation into the allegedly fraudulent transfer of the applicant’s ownership interest in a private company.

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…

The application concerns the respondent State’s alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s criminal complaint of being a victim of child pornography offences at the age of thirteen, which ultimately resulted in the prosecution of one alleged offender becoming time-barred.

Inadmissible

Inadmissible