Decisions 102 found

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 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Possessions)

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 - Civil proceedings; Article 6-1 - Tribunal established by law)

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property); Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage; Just satisfaction)

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 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions); Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage; Pecuniary damage; Just satisfaction)

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 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property); No violation of Article 14+P1-1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property; Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions); Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary …

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 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property); 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 - 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 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 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence; Respect for home; Respect for private life); Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression); 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 P…

The applications concern the allegedly unlawful expropriation and demolition of the properties indicated in the Appendix and the alleged inadequacy of the compensation paid by the domestic authorities.

Inadmissible

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Inadmissible

L’affaire concerne l’effet combiné d’une mesure de confiscation du profit d’un délit ordonnée par les juridictions pénales et d’une condamnation, prononcée ultérieurement par la Cour des comptes, à indemniser l’administration des dommages causés par le même délit.

The applicant was sexually assaulted by a teacher, X, at her boarding school in 1990 when she was eight years old. The offence was reported to the police at the time but the applicant was not believed. She reported it again to the police as an adult in 2012 but the police declined to reopen the investigation even though, unknown to the applicant, X had been convicted in 2007 of the sexual assault of a child in very s…

The case concerns the domestic courts’ order for the applicants to pay damages to a State-owned company (“the company”), issued in the context of criminal proceedings against the applicants.

Inadmissible

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 - Civil proceedings; Article 6-1 - Fair hearing); 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 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions); Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home)

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 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.

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.

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…

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…

Inadmissible

Inadmissible

Struck out of the list

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…

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 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 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

Inadmissible

Partly struck out of the list; Partly inadmissible

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 applicant is a company operating in the waste collection sector. In 2014 it concluded a contract with a Chinese company for the sale of 15 containers of plastic waste for export to China. In early March 2014, the containers were taken to the Gioia Tauro harbour for shipping to China.

Inadmissible

Inadmissible

Inadmissible

Inadmissible

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. 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 Cham…

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. 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 Cham…

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. 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 Cham…

Inadmissible

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Inadmissible

Struck out of the list

No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)

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 restrictions imposed on the applicants, who are journalists, from entering Crimea for periods of five or ten years on national…

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 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…

Inadmissible

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 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)

Inadmissible

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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…

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 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)

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)

In April 1996, an oil pipeline situated beneath the applicants’ land ruptured, resulting in a spill that contaminated their agricultural plots. Croatia ratified the Convention on 5 November 1997.

The application arises from the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation that began on 24 February 2022. It concerns the rape and other forms of violence allegedly inflicted upon the first applicant and the alleged unlawful killing of her husband by Russian forces in their home in the Kyiv region on 9 March 2022 (see, for the context, Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 othe…

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

The application concerns the freezing of the applicants’ assets (apartments, plots of land, stocks and vehicles) by three separate orders (“the freezing orders”) issued on 18 November 2020, 30 December 2020 and 15 January 2021 by the Skopje Criminal Court of First Instance at the preliminary investigation stage of criminal proceedings against the applicants. The proceedings concerned suspicions of abuse of office and…

The application concerns the refusal of the applicant company’s compensation claim against the respondent State for damages suffered as a result of the seizure and confiscation of its vehicles.

The case concerns the applicant’s complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, because of a delay in domestic proceedings and decisions taken in them, she has been unable to obtain deposit insurance compensation after her bank had become insolvent even though the domestic courts acknowledged that she was entitled to it.

The application concerns the demolition of the applicant’s commercial property by municipal authorities and subsequent civil proceedings in which the applicant sought compensation for the destroyed property.

The application concerns a temporary freezing order in respect of the applicant company’s bank transactions, issued in the context of an ongoing pre-trial investigation concerning allegations of money laundering.

The applications concern the allegedly excessive burden sustained by the applicant companies through new taxes imposed on their carbon dioxide emission allowances that they receive under the EU Emission Trading System.

The case concerns criminal proceedings in which the applicant was convicted of unlawful possession of two grams of cocaine with intent to supply it to others, and the confiscation of a vehicle used in the commission of the offence, which was driven by the applicant but owned by a third party.

Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 2 July 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 Chamber o…