Decisions 127 found

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)

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications; (Art. 34) Victim; Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect); No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment; Prohibition of torture); Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary da…

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications; (Art. 34) Victim; Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect); No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment; Prohibition of torture); Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary da…

Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression); Violation of Article 13+10-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general}; Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

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 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect); Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture; Degrading treatment); 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 re…

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria; (Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies; Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings; Right to a fair trial; Article 6-1 - Reasonable time); Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings; Article 6-1 - Reasonable …

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; Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect); Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect); Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture; Degrading treatment)

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)

The application concerns the applicant’s complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention regarding excessive length of criminal proceedings and the absence of an effective remedy to that effect.

The application concerns the alleged inadequacy of compensation for unlawful detention and the alleged denial of access to the Court of Cassation.

The applications concern the detainee applicants’ inability to access the compensation they were awarded for cramped conditions of detention.

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

Struck out of the list

Inadmissible

Inadmissible

The application concerns allegedly inadequate protection against the homophobic hate speech. The applicants, a same-sex couple residing in Poland, were married in Portugal in 2017. On 24 May 2017 the applicants shared on Facebook a photograph depicting them kissing. The post received several thousand comments many of them hateful, homophobic, inciting to violence and containing death threats. On 10 July 2017 the appl…

The application emanates from the armed conflict with Russia in the east of Ukraine. The applicant was prosecuted on suspicion of having committed a crime in the Donetsk region of Ukraine. On 12 February 2014 a Ukrainian first instance court sentenced him to life imprisonment. He appealed against his sentence, but the appellate proceedings were interrupted by the outbreak of the armed conflict. It is not clear from t…

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect); Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture; Degrading treatment); 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-…

The applications arise from the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation, which began on 24 February 2022. They concern the alleged injuries, ill-treatment, forced labour and unlawful detention of a number of Ukrainian prisoners of war – some of the applicants and the remaining applicants’ close relatives – by agents of the Russian Federation.

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 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 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…

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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…

Struck out of the list

The applications concern the alleged ill-treatment and unlawful detention of a number of Ukrainian prisoners of war who were reportedly captured and detained by the Russian armed forces during the full-scale invasion in Donetsk, Kharkiv and Luhansk regions, in April 2022 (see also Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, §§ 68-69, 71, 9 July 2025).

The applications emanate from the armed conflict with Russia in the east of Ukraine. Each of the applicants was convicted of crimes by Ukrainian courts on various dates predating the outbreak of the armed conflict. Applicant no. 2, Mr Oleksiy Varganov, applicant no. 8, Mr Ruslan Kuzmin, and applicant no. 9, Mr Sergiy Rybalko were sentenced to eleven, nine and fifteen years of imprisonment, respectively. All other app…

The applications concern the alleged ill-treatment, forced labour, and unlawful detention of a number of Ukrainian prisoners of war who were reportedly captured and detained by the Russian armed forces during the full‑scale invasion in Mariupol, Donetsk region, between March and June 2022 (see also Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, § 69, 9 July 2025).

The application concerns the alleged risk to life of, and ill‑treatment suffered by, a Ukrainian prisoner of war (the second applicant) who was reportedly captured and detained by the Russian armed forces during the full‑scale invasion in the Kyiv region in March 2022 (see also Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, § 67, 9 July 2025).

The applications emanate from the armed conflict with Russia in the east of Ukraine. Each of the applicants was convicted of crimes by Ukrainian courts and sentenced to life imprisonment. The applicants’ sentences became final on various dates preceding the establishment of the effective control over the east of Ukraine by the Russian Federation (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (dec.) [GC], nos. 8019/16 and…

The application concerns various sets of proceedings aimed at the expulsion of the applicant (a lawfully resident alien) on the grounds of national security.

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…

The application concerns restrictions imposed by the Russian authorities on the applicant’s right to leave Crimea following the Russian Federation’s assertion of jurisdiction over the peninsula (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (dec.) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, § 335, 16 December 2020).

Inadmissible

Struck out of the list

Struck out of the list

Inadmissible

Struck out of the list

Inadmissible

Struck out of the list

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect); Violation of Article 13+13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy; Effective remedy); Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application)

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

The applications concern alleged restrictions on the applicants’ right to freedom of movement between Crimea and mainland Ukraine, resulting from the Russian Federation’s de facto transformation of the administrative boundary line into a state border following its assertion of jurisdiction over Crimea (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, § 1175, 25 June 2024).

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 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 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 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…

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

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 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.