Decisions 565 found

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 entry bans imposed on the applicants by the Russian authorities in relation to Crimea. The applicants, most of whom are of Cri…

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

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment; Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect); No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture; Degrading treatment; Inhuman treatment); Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage; Just satisfaction)

Inadmissible

Struck out of the list (Art. 37) Striking out applications-{general}; (Art. 37-1) Striking out applications; (Art. 37-1) Respect for human rights; (Art. 37-1-a) Absence of intention to pursue application; Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life); Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage; Pecuniary damage; Just s…

The application concerns libel proceedings brought against the applicant – a lawyer specialised in environmental law – by a private company (“the company”) which developed the Amulsar gold mine project. As a member of a working group on responsible State mining policy (including the Amulsar mine project) the applicant participated in a meeting of the working group, during which she insinuated that the company had eng…

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.

La requête concerne la durée de la procédure pénale menée contre les requérants qui débuta le 9 septembre 2015 et se termina avec l’arrêt de la Cour de cassation du 28 octobre 2025. La partie de la procédure devant cette juridiction dura du 3 décembre 2020 au 28 octobre 2025, soit environ quatre ans et dix mois.

The applications concern the proceedings for the applicants’ removal from Poland to Afghanistan and their detention in that connection.

The application concerns custody proceedings and the alleged failure of the Serbian authorities to secure contact between the applicant and her two minor children.

The applicant, a former judge of the Supreme Court, sought damages from the State for length of administrative proceedings concerning her judicial office, and claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) in just satisfaction. Although the competent court found a violation, it awarded the applicant EUR 500. The Constitutional Court dismissed her constitutional complaint by a decision of 4 January 2026.

The application concerns the confiscation of undeclared cash belonging to the applicant at a border crossing. On 19 August 2019, while entering Serbia on his way to Türkiye, the applicant, a Turkish national, was stopped by Serbian customs officers who discovered that he was carrying 282,550 euros in cash, which he failed to declare, “in breach of the relevant legal obligation to declare all sums exceeding 10,000 eur…

The application concerns the alleged failure of the Serbian authorities to secure effective contact between the applicant and his two minor children, owing to the “excessive length” of the related civil proceedings and “the inadequate” enforcement or “non-enforcement” of interim access orders issued in this context.

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention); Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review); Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Inadmissible

Inadmissible

Inadmissible

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention); Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review); Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings; Article 6-1 - Reasonable time); Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial; Criminal proceedings; Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings; Article 6-1 - Reasonable time); Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial; Civil proceedings; Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings; Article 6-1 - Access to court); Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings; Article 6-1 - Access to court); Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings; Article 6-1 - Access to court); Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions); Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings; Article 6-1 - Access to court)

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

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings; Article 6-1 - Access to court); Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings; Article 6-1 - Access to court); Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review)

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings; Article 6-1 - Access to court); Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings; Article 6-1 - Reasonable time); Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial; Administrative proceedings; Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

The application concerns the arbitrary detention of the applicant, and torture and ill-treatment, to which he was allegedly subjected in Poland during the extraordinary rendition operations by the United States authorities.

The application concerns the failure of the Federal Court of Justice to provide reasons for its decision not to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling notwithstanding the applicant’s request in this respect.

The applications concern the admissibility of witness evidence and the examination of the defendants in civil proceedings.

The first applicant[1] was the second applicant’s mother. On 4 June 2017 the first applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the police alleging that she and her son, the second applicant, had been physically assaulted and humiliated by their neighbours.

The application concerns a complaint under Article 11 of the Convention about the impossibility for the applicant, because of his status as a prisoner, to exercise his right to peaceful assembly while serving his sentence in prison.

The application concerns the respondent State’ responsibility for the inhuman treatment allegedly suffered by the applicant while placed in State orphanages during the communist era and the effectiveness of the legal framework available to obtain acknowledgment and redress for the resulting physical and psychological suffering. In particular, it raises the question whether the applicant was denied such redress as a r…

The applications concern the right to legal representation by a lawyer of one’s own choosing in criminal proceedings. On 25 February 2020 the applicants were convicted by the Court of First Instance in Curaçao of accepting bribes in connection with a tender process conducted by their employer, a State-owned company. The criminal investigation had been initiated following a report filed by the Prime Minister of Curaça…

The application mainly concerns the allegations of deprivation of liberty in the publicly run Medical and Social Care Centre where the first applicant was placed. It also concerns alleged breach of her right to private life, as she does not have a legal guardian appointed by the authorities despite her severe mental and physical disability.

The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the applicant’s trial and conviction in absentia as well as the lack of an effective defence.

The case concerns the applicant’s allegedly arbitrary and disproportionate eviction, on 10 January 2020, from a State-owned residential bloc of apartments, where she had been accommodated, together with her disabled son (born in 1997), since 1 January 2006. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that her eviction interfered with her right to respect for her home. She additionally relies on Article …

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

Inadmissible

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications; (Art. 34) Victim; Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria; (Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies; (Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded; (Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae; Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home); Respondent State to take measures of a…

Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage; Pecuniary damage; Just satisfaction)

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings; Article 6-1 - Reasonable time); Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to leave a country)

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

Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria; (Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies; Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria; (Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies; Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression); Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)…

Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria; (Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies; Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria; (Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies; Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression); Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)…

The application concerns the failure of the Oldenburg Court of Appeal to provide reasons for its decision not to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling notwithstanding the applicant’s request in this respect.

The application concerns the failure of the Federal Court of Justice to provide reasons for its decision not to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling notwithstanding the applicant company’s request in this respect.

The applicant bought a flat from a private party. Domestic courts later found that the flat had been alienated from a previous owner through a fictitious transaction and ordered its return to the previous owner’s alleged heir. The applicant considers that the courts’ findings and the order requiring the return of the flat breached his rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

The application concerns the applicant’s pending extradition to Chile from Spain, the applicant being the sole guardian of her 14-year-old daughter with whom she resides in Spain.

The applicant was the victim of a sexual assault in Pamplona in July 2016. Her attackers were convicted for rape and sentenced to fifteen years of imprisonment. The case attracted great media and public attention in Spain and became known as the Manada case. The Manada was the name of a WhatsApp group used by the convicted to communicate among themselves.

The application concerns the reasonableness and duration of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. By an order of the Novi Sad High Court of 23 November 2024, the applicant was placed in detention on remand. Her detention was subsequently extended on several occasions and remained in force until 17 June 2025, when it was replaced by house arrest. Between 20 December 2024 and 20 June 2025, the applicant lodged seven con…

The applications concern the applicants’ deprivation of property in favour of the State. In applications nos. 12930/21, 42966/22, 37406/23 and 38227/23 the applicants purchased from private persons commercial premises which had initially belonged to municipal property of the city of Dnipro and which had subsequently been sold at public auctions following the bankruptcy and liquidation of the respective municipal ente…

The applications concern the applicants’ deprivation of property bought at public auctions. The applicants bought some real property at public auctions conducted by the State Bailiffs’ Service or the Deposit Guarantee Fund in connection with the relevant proceedings against private persons or entities which were unable to pay off their creditors (see Appendix below). Those auctions were later invalidated for various …

The applications concern the authorities’ alleged failure to protect the applicants’ relatives who were healthcare workers, contracted COVID-19 at workplace and died in April 2020.

Les requêtes concernent des sanctions prononcées contre sept athlètes de niveau international pour violation des règles antidopage, au sens du code mondial antidopage (CMAD), sanctions qui ont été confirmées par le Tribunal arbitral du sport (TAS) et le Tribunal fédéral suisse.

The applicants are a court prosecutor, Mr. R (“first applicant”), and an association of prosecutors, “Asociación de Fiscales” (“second applicant”). The first applicant applied to the specific role of “Court Prosecutor for Minors” at the Public Prosecutor’s Office. On 30 March 2021, a different candidate, Mr. E, was appointed. He belonged to a different association of prosecutors, “Unión Progresista de Fiscales”. The …

The application concerns the applicant’s complaint about the application of the Law on Rehabilitation of Convicted Persons (Law 70/1981), which automatically rendered his conviction for manslaughter ineligible for rehabilitation, with the result that it could never become spent, thereby excluding him from employment in his chosen field.

The application concerns the applicant’s removal from office as Auditor General of the Republic of Cyprus – where he served since 2014 – pursuant to a decision of the Supreme Court’s Council of 18 September 2024.

The case concerns the alleged unfairness of the administrative-offence proceedings against the applicant. On 20 September 2018 the applicant’s car collided with another vehicle at an uncontrolled intersection. The patrol police drew up an administrative-offence report in respect of the applicant, concluding, on the basis of the accident scheme and the explanations provided by both drivers, that, under the applicable …

The applications concern the denial of special renumeration for seriously wounded servicemen to which the applicants were allegedly entitled pursuant to Government’s Resolution No. 168 of 28 February 2022.

The application concerns the disappearance of the applicant’s car from a vehicle pound where it had been placed by the State Bailiffs Service under the safekeeping of a third party.

The application concerns the seizure, for debt, of the applicant company’s mortgaged assets. The applicant company complains that, in the proceedings in which it attempted to challenge that seizure, Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 were breached.

The Statement of facts and the initial questions to the parties are available in HUDOC.

The application concerns the alleged failure of the domestic courts to protect the applicant’s reputation in defamation proceedings involving a blogger who had accused him of participation in serious criminal conduct connected with his work as an investigative journalist.

The application concerns the applicants’ complaints about the alleged inappropriate procedural response of the domestic authorities to the death of their relative (‘the mother’) and her child (‘the child’), allegedly caused by medical negligence during childbirth. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

The applications concern the failure by the courts to examine a claim for interest concerning seized cash due to the conflicting competence of civil and criminal jurisdictions.

The application concerns the non-renewal of the applicant company’s licence to use a radio frequency. On 8 November 2019, before the expiry of its broadcasting licence to use a specific radio frequency, the applicant requested the Media Council of the National Media and Infocommunications Authority (NMHH) to renew its licence for a further seven years, without tendering, which is a special opportunity provided to ser…

Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life; Respect for private life); Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage; Just satisfaction)

Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria; (Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded; No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention); No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty; Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion); Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention); Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damag…

The application concerns the alleged lack of effectiveness of the criminal investigation into violence inflicted on the applicant by an adult, on 10 July 2022, when the applicant was 9 years old.

The case concerns the detention of a mentally ill person, subject to involuntary confinement, in an ordinary prison. In the criminal proceedings against the applicant, on 8 February 2001 the Fier District Court found the applicant not criminally liable because of his mental condition, and ordered his involuntary medical treatment in the Tirana Psychiatric Hospital. Following that judgment, the applicant was placed in…

The application concerns the applicant’s administrative conviction for hooliganism in the absence of an oral hearing. On 11 December 2018 the applicant had a dispute with a lawyer inside a courthouse in Chișinău. On 27 February 2019, following that incident and in the absence of the applicant, the police drew up an administrative offence report for hooliganism and fined him 1,000 Moldovan lei – approximately 50 euros…

The case concerns the applicant’s complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention regarding the allegedly arbitrary retention of his property by the investigating authorities, as well as the alleged damage and eventual loss of some of that property.

The case concerns nuisances experienced since 2014 by the applicant in her apartment, allegedly caused by the operation of a nearby bakery.

Preliminary objection partially joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria; (Art 35-1) Four-month period (former six-month); Struck out of the list (Art. 37) Striking out applications-{general}; (Art. 37-1) Striking out applications; (Art. 37-1-a) Absence of intention to pursue application; Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria; (Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae; (Art. 35-3-a) Rati…

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

Preliminary objection partially joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria; (Art 35-1) Four-month period (former six-month); Struck out of the list (Art. 37) Striking out applications-{general}; (Art. 37-1) Striking out applications; (Art. 37-1-a) Absence of intention to pursue application; Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria; (Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae; (Art. 35-3-a) Rati…

No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nulla poena sine lege; Nullum crimen sine lege) Separate opinion(s) attached.

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings; Article 6-1 - Access to court); Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions); Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage; Just satisfaction)

Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly) read in the light of Article 10 - (Art. 10) Freedom of expression - {general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression); Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage; Just satisfaction)

No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nulla poena sine lege; Nullum crimen sine lege)

Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria; (Art 35-1) Four-month period (former six-month); (Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded; No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions; Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment); No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment; Inhuman treatment); Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture; Degrading treatment)

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