TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
Hearing: Biao v. Denmark (no. 38590/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-04-01 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF BIAO v. DENMARK
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-03-25 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 8-1, 14, 14+8
Issue: Section 9, Subsection 7, Aliens Act, 1 January 2004 ; Act No. 1204, 27 December 2003 ; Preparatory works to Act No. 1204, 27 December 2003 ; Act No. 365, 6 June 2002 ;  Preparatory works to Act No. 365, 6 June 2002
Conclusion: No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94;Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999;Andrey Sheabashov v. Latvia (dec.), no. 50065/99, 22 May 1999;Antwi and Others v. Norway, no. 26940/10, §§ 88 89, 14 February 2012;Bah v. the United Kingdom, no. 56328/07, §§ 43-46, ECHR 2011;Boujlifa v. France, judgment of 21 October 1997, § 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 VI;Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.  13378/05, § 60, ECHR 2008;Butt v. Norway, no. 47017/09, § 70, 4 December 2012;Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, §§ 61 and 70, ECHR 2010;Clift v. the United Kingdom, no.7205/07, §§ 56-58, 13 July 2010;D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, ECHR 2007;Darren Omoregie and Others v. Norway, no. 265/07, § 64, 31 July 2008;Donohoe v. Ireland, no. 19165/08, § 73, 12 December 2013;Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 72, Series A no. 22;Gül v. Switzerland, judgment of 19 February 1996, Reports 1996-I;Hode and Abdi v. the United Kingdom, no. 22341/09, 6 November 2012;Jerry Olajide Sarumi v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43279/98, 26 January 1999;Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, § 57, ECHR 2011;Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, 7 December 1976, § 56, Series A no. 23;Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts);Mitchell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 40447/98, 24 November 1998;Nunez v. Norway, no. 55597/09, §§ 66-70, 28 June 2011;Osman v. Denmark, no. 38058/09, § 53, 14 June 2011;Ponomaryovi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 5335/05, 18 September 2007;Priya v. Denmark (dec.), no. 13549/03, 6 July 2006;Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, no. 50435/99, ECHR 2006 I;Söderman v. Sweden [GC], no. 5786/08, § 78, 12 November 2013;Solomon v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 44328/98, 5 September 2000;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 39, ECHR 2005 X;Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, § 83 in fine, ECHR 2010
External sources: Article 5 § 2, Council of Europe, European Convention on Nationality, 6 November 1997, ETS No. 166;Letter of 15 October 2004 Mr Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights to the Danish Government
Hearing: Telegraaf Media Nederland Landelijke Media B.V. and Others v. the Netherlands (no. 39315/06) (Chamber hearing, 2012-06-19 00:00:00)
Case: UITGEVERSMAATSCHAPPIJ DE TELEGRAAF B.V. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
Document type: DECISIONS
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 10, 35
Conclusion: Partly inadmissible
Hearing: El-Masri v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (no. 39630/09) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-05-16 00:00:00)
Case: EL-MASRI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2010-09-28 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 3, 5, 5-1, 8, 8-1, 10, 13
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Zubac v. Croatia (no. 40160/12) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2017-07-12 00:00:00)
Case: ZUBAC v. CROATIA
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 6-1
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Zubac v. Croatia (no. 40160/12) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2017-07-12 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF ZUBAC v. CROATIA
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2016-10-11 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 6-1
Conclusion: Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)
Hearing: Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan (no. 40167/06)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-02-05 00:00:00)
Case: SARGSYAN v. AZERBAIJAN
Document type: DECISIONS
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 13, 14, 34, 35, 35-1, 35-3, P1-1
Conclusion: Admissible
Strasbourg case-law cited: Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, §§ 131-132 and 138-139 , 7 July 2011 l;Belilos v. Switzerland, 29 April 1988, § 49, Series A no. 132;Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, §§ 70 and 86, ECHR 2006-III;Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, 14 December 2011;Chrysostomos, Papachrysostomou and Loizidou v. Turkey, nos.15299/89, 15300/89 and 15318/89, D. R. 68, p. 216, at p. 250;Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, §§ 104, 175 and 189, ECHR 2001-IV;Cyprus v. Turkey, no. 8007/77, decision of 10 July 1978, D.R. 13, p. 85 at p. 154;Demades v. Turkey, no. 16219/90, §§ 14-17, 31 July 2003;Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.), nos. 46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, ECHR 2010-..;Dogan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 8803-8811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02, §§ 111-114 and 139, ECHR 2004-VI;Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey, no. 16163/90, §§ 15-18, 31 July 2003;Içyer v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18888/02, § 73, ECHR 2006-I;Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC] (dec.), no. 48787/99, 4 July 2001;Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 310-313, ECHR 2004-VII;Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 52, ECHR 2000-VII;J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44302/02, ECHR 2007-X;Loizidou v. Turkey (merits), 18 December 1996, §§ 41-47 and 62-64, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI;Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, § 89, Series A no. 310;M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 251, 21 January 2011;Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII;Maltzan and Others v. Germany (dec.) [GC], nos. 71916/01, 71917/01 and 10260/02, § 74, ECHR 2005-V;Moldovan and Others and Rostas and Others v. Romania (dec.), nos. 41138/98 and 64320/01, 13 March 2001;Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece, 24 June 1993, §§ 39-46, Series A no. 260-B;Preussische Treuhand GmbH and Co. KG a.A. v. Poland (dec.), no. 47550/06, §§ 57-62, 7 October 2008;Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, §§ 84-86, ECHR 2001-VIII;Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064-66/90 and 16068-73/90, §§ 159, 161 and 170, ECHR 2009-...;Vasilescu v. Romania, 22 May 1998, §§ 48-49, Reports 1998-III;Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46347/99, 14 March 2005;Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, no. 46347/99, § 28, 22 December 2005
External sources: Articles 25 and 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969
Hearing: Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan (no. 40167/06)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-02-05 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF SARGSYAN v. AZERBAIJAN
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2017-12-12 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 1, 8, 8-1, 13, 19, 35, 35-3-a, 41, 46, 46-2, P1-1, P1-1-1
Conclusion: Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 65, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 IV;Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 60642/08, ECHR 2014;Avcı and Others v. Turkey, no. 70417/01, § 56, 27 June 2006;Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, §§ 218-223, ECHR 2012;Cyprus v. Turkey (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 25781/94, § 56, ECHR 2014;Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) [GC], nos. 46113/99 and 7 others, ECHR 2010;Doğan and Others v. Turkey (just satisfaction), nos. 8803/02 and 14 others, §§ 52-53, 13 July 2006;Ernestina Zullo v. Italy [GC], no. 64897/01, §§ 115-116 and 148-149, 29 March 2006;Ječius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 41 and 109, ECHR 2000-IX;Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98, and 2 others, §§ 255 256, 3 October 2008;Kurić and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828/06, ECHR 2014;Loizidou v. Turkey (Article 50), 28 July 1998, § 33, Reports 1998 IV;Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, §§ 67-71, 12 July 2001;Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), 31 October 1995, § 34, Series A no. 330 B;Solomonides v. Turkey (just satisfaction), no. 16161/90, §§ 42-43 and 47, 27 July 2010;Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 224, ECHR 2009;Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, §§ 84-88, ECHR 2009
Hearing: Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France (no. 40454/07) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-04-15 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF COUDERC AND HACHETTE FILIPACCHI ASSOCIÉS v. FRANCE
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-06-12 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 8-1, 10, 10-1, 10-2
Conclusion: Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Armonienė v. Lithuania, no 36919/02, § 36, 25 November 2008;Artun and Güvener v. Turkey, no 75510/01, 26 June 2007;Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no 39954/08, 7 February 2012;Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no 21980/93, §§ 59 and 62, ECHR 1999 III;Chauvy and Others v. France, no 64915/01, § 70, ECHR 2004 VI;Colombani and Others v. France, no 51279/99, § 68, ECHR 2002-V;Eon v. France, no 26118/10, § 59, 14 March 2013;Flinkkilä and Others v. Finland, no 25576/04, 6 April 2010;Gurgenidze v. Georgia, no 71678/01, § 55, 17 October 2006;Hachette Filipacchi Associés (« Ici Paris ») v. France, no 12268/03, 23 July 2009;Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France, no 71111/01, § 43, 14 June 2007;Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland, no 53678/00, § 38, ECHR 2004 X;Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 62, ECHR 2007 IV;Lopes Gomes da Silva v. Portugal, no 37698/97, § 30, ECHR 2000-X;MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no 39401/04, § 142, 18 January 2011;Minelli v. Switzerland (dec.), no 14991/02, 14 June 2005;Mosley v. the United Kingdom, no 48009/08, § 111, 10 May 2011;Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland [GC], no 16354/06, § 60, ECHR 2012 (extracts);Ojala and Etukeno Oy v. Finland, no 69939/10, 14 January 2014;Otegi Mondragon v. Spain, no 2034/07, ECHR 2011;Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no 49017/99, ECHR 2004-XI;Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no 34147/06 § 40, 21 September 2010;Reklos and Davourlis v. Greece, no 1234/05, § 35, 15 January 2009;Ruusunen v. Finland, no 73579/10, 14 January 2014;S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 2008;Saaristo and Others v. Finland, no 184/06, § 61, 12 October 2010;Schüssel v. Austria (dec.), no 42409/98, 21 February 2002;Söderman v. Sweden [GC], nos. 5786/08, § 78, ECHR 2013;Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria (no 2), no 21277/05 4 June 2009;Sürek v. Turkey (no 1) [GC], no 26682/95, § 64, ECHR 1999-IV;Tammer v. Estonia, no 41205/98, § 60, ECHR 2001 I;Timciuc v. Romania (dec.), no 28999/03, § 144, 12 October 2010;Vides Aizsardzības Klubs v. Latvia, no 57829/00, § 40, 27 May 2004;Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, § 57, ECHR 2004-VI;Von Hannover v. Germany (no 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, ECHR 2012;Von Hannover v. Germany (no 3), no 8772/10, 19 September 2013;X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 23, Series A no 91
Hearing: Khoroshenko v. Russia (no. 41418/04) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-09-03 00:00:00)
Case: KHOROSHENKO v. RUSSIA
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 8-1
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania (no. 41720/13) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2017-11-15 00:00:00)
Case: NICOLAE VIRGILIU TĂNASE v. ROMANIA
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Articles of the Convention concerned: 3
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Paposhvili v. Belgium (no. 41738/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-09-16 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF PAPOSHVILI v. BELGIUM
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-04-17 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 2, 3, 8, 8-1, 35, 35-1
Issue: Section 39/82 of the Aliens Act ; Act of 15 March 2012 amending the Aliens Act
Conclusion: Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Georgia);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Georgia);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Georgia)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, §§ 67-68, Series A no 94;Ahmut v. the Netherlands, 28 November 1996, § 63, Reports 1996 VI;Antwi and Others v. Norway, no 26940/10, § 89, 14 February 2012;Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999 III;Arvelo Aponte v. the Netherlands, no 28770/05, § 60, 3 November 2011;Boujlifa v. France, 21 October 1997, § 42, Reports 1997 VI;Boultif v. Switzerland, no 54273/00, § 48, ECHR 2001 IX;D. v. the United Kingdom, 2 May 1997, Reports 1997 III;Darren Omoregie and Others v. Norway, no 265/07, 31 July 2008;Gezginci v. Switzerland, no 16327/05, § 67, 9 December 2010;Gül v. Switzerland, 19 February 1996, § 38, Reports 1996 I;Kanagaratnam v. Belgium, no 15297/09, § 67, 13 December 2011;Maslov v. Austria [GC], no 1638/03, § 68, ECHR 2008;Mi. L. v. France (dec.), no 23473/11, § 33, 11 September 2012;Micallef v. Malta [GC], no 17056/06, § 55, ECHR 2009;N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 26565/05, §§ 48 and 50, ECHR 2008;Nunez v. Norway, no 55597/09, 28 June 2011;Popov v. France, nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, § 109, 19 January 2012;Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002 III;Raninen v. Finland, 16 December 1997, § 41, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 VIII;Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, no 50435/99, §§ 38-39, ECHR 2006-I;Solomon v. the Netherlands (dec.), no 44328/98, 5 September 2000;Trabelsi v. Germany, no 41548/06, 13 October 2011;Udeh v. Switzerland, no 12020/09, 16 April 2013;Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no 46410/99, §§ 59 to 61, ECHR 2006 XII;Y.P. and L.P. v. France, no 32476/06, § 53, 2 September 2010
Hearing: Paposhvili v. Belgium (no. 41738/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-09-16 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF PAPOSHVILI v. BELGIUM
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2016-12-13 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 3, 8, 8-1, 41
Conclusion: Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Georgia);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (Conditional) (Georgia);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Strasbourg case-law cited: A.S. v. Switzerland, no. 39350/13, 30 June 2015;Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 26, Series A no. 32;Aswat v. the United Kingdom, no. 17299/12, § 49, 16 April 2013;Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 86, ECHR 2015;D. v. the United Kingdom, 2 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 III;E.O. v. Italy (dec.), no. 34724/10, 10 May 2012;El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, ECHR 2012;F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, ECHR 2016;Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, ECHR 2012;Karagoz v. France (dec.), no. 47531/99, 15 November 2001;Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, ECHR 2003 IX;Khachatryan v. Belgium (dec.), no. 72597/10, 7 April 2015;Kochieva and Others v. Sweden (dec.), no. 75203/12, 30 April 2013;M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, ECHR 2011;Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000‑XII;Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 121, ECHR 2005-I;Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, § 93, ECHR 2008;Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, § 79, ECHR 2016;N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, ECHR 2008;Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002 III;S.H.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 60367/10, 29 January 2013;Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, ECHR 2008;Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, § 214, 28 June 2011;Tarakhel v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 29217/12, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Tatar v. Switzerland, no. 65692/12, 14 April 2015;Trabelsi v. Belgium, no. 140/10, § 130, ECHR 2014 (extracts);V.S. and Others v. France (dec.), no. 35226/11, 25 November 2014;Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215;Yoh-Ekale Mwanje v. Belgium, no. 10486/10, 20 December 2011
Hearing: Del Rio Prada v. Spain (no. 42750/09 ) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-03-20 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF DEL RÍO PRADA v. SPAIN
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2012-07-10 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 5, 5-1, 7, 7-1, 35, 35-3, 41, 46, 46-2
Issue: Article 988 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ; Articles 70 § 2 and 100 of the Criminal Code of 1973 ; Article 78 of the Criminal Code of 1995 ; Article 59 of the Prison Rules of 1981
Conclusion: Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Heavier penalty;Nulla poena sine lege;Retroactivity);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures);Non-pecuniary damage - award
Strasbourg case-law cited: Achour v. France [GC], no 67335/01, § 44, ECHR 2006-IV;Aleksanyan v. Russia, no 46468/06, §§ 239-240, 22 December 2008;Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 50, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III;Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no 71503/01, §§ 202-203, ECHR 2004-II;Bozano v. France, judgment of 18 December 1986, § 54, Series A no 111;Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no 31443/96, § 194, ECHR 2004-V;Cantoni v. France, 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V;Çelikkaya v. Turkey (dec.), no 34026/03, 1er June 2010;Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 145, ECHR 2000-VII;Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no 40984/07, §§ 176-177, 22 April 2010;Garagin v. Italy (dec.), no 33290/07, 29 April 2008;Grava v. Italy, no 43522/98, 10 July 2003;Gurguchiani v. Spain, no 16012/06, 15 December 2009;Hosein v. the United Kingdom, no 26293/95, Commission Decision of 28 February 1996;Irfan Kalan v. Turkey (dec.), no 73561/01, 2 October 2001;Jamil v. France, 8 June 1995, §§ 30-31, Series A no 317-B;Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no 21906/04, ECHR 2008-...;Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, Series A no 260-A;M. v. Germany, no 19359/04, ECHR 2009;Oshurko v. Ukraine, no 33108/05, § 98, 8 September 2011;Pilla v. Italy, no 64088/00, § 41, 2 March 2006;S.W. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, §§ 35-36, Series A no 335-B;Scoppola v. Italy (no 2) [GC], no 10249/03, 17 September 2009;Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII;Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 46295/99, § 64, ECHR 2002-IV;Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 50, ECHR 2001-II;Weeks v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, § 42, Series A no 114;Welch v. the United Kingdom, 9 February 1995, §§ 27-28, Series A no 307-A
Hearing: Catan and Others v. Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 43370/04, 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-01-25 00:00:00)
Case: CATAN AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
Document type: DECISIONS
Articles of the Convention concerned: 3, 8, 14+8, 14, P1-2
Conclusion: Partly admissible;Partly inadmissible
Hearing: Garib v. the Netherlands (no. 43494/09) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2017-01-25 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF GARIB v. THE NETHERLANDS
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2016-02-23 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, P1-1, P4-2, P4-2-1, P4-2-3
Issue: Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act ; 2003 Housing Bye-law of the municipality of Rotterdam (2006 version)

Conclusion: No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to choose residence)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, ECHR 2013 (extracts);Ayangil and Others v. Turkey, no. 33294/03, § 50, 6 December 2011;Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006 III;Buckley v. the United Kingdom, 25 September 1996, § 76, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 IV;Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 33, ECHR 2008;Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 101, ECHR 2014;Codona v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 485/05, 7 February 2006;Connors v. the United Kingdom, no. 66746/01, §§ 82-83, 27 May 2004;Guincho v. Portugal, 10 July 1984, § 39, Series A no. 81;Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, § 166, ECHR 2006 VIII;James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 51, Series A no. 98;Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, § 70, Series A no. 310;Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, § 117, ECHR 2005‑IX;McCann v. the United Kingdom, no. 19009/04, § 49, ECHR 2008;Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 53, Series A no. 169;Noack and Others v. Germany (dec.), ECHR 2000-VI;O’Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, § 115, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, § 170, 27 August 2015;Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, § 48, 24 October 2002;S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 129, ECHR 2014 (extracts);S.H. and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 57813/00, ECHR 2011;Salah v. the Netherlands, no. 8196/02, § 69, ECHR 2006 IX (extracts);Shefer v. Russia (dec.), no. 45175/04, 13 March 2012;Van Anraat v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65389/09, § 75, 6 July 2010;Ward v. the United Kingdom, (dec.) no. 31888/03, 9 November 2004;Winterstein and Others v. France, no. 27013/07, § 159, 17 October 2013;Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, §§ 112-115, ECHR 2006‑IV;Zehentner v. Austria, no. 20082/02, §§ 57-58, 16 July 2009
Hearing: Grzęda v. Poland (no. 43572/18) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2021-05-19 00:00:00)
Case: GRZĘDA v. POLAND
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 6-1, 13
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: F.G. v. Sweden (no. 43611/11)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-12-03 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF F.G. v. SWEDEN
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-01-16 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 2, 3
Conclusion: No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iran);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iran)