TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
Hearing: López Ribalda and Others v. Spain (no. 1874/13) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-11-28 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF LÓPEZ RIBALDA AND OTHERS v. SPAIN
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2018-01-09 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 6-1, 8, 8-1, 35, 41
Issue: Article 20.3 of the Labour Regulations (Estatuto de los Trabadores) approved by Royal Legislative Decree no. 1/1995 ; Section 5 of the Data Protection Act ; Article 3 of Instruction no. 1/2006 issued by the Spanish Data Protection Agency

Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Allan v. the United Kingdom, no. 48539/99, §§ 42 and 43, 5 November 2002;Bărbulescu v. Romania [GC], no. 61496/08, ECHR 2017 (extracts);Benediktsdóttir v. Iceland (dec.), no. 38079/06, 16 June 2009;Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 88-98, 10 March 2009;García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999 I;Halford v. the United Kingdom, 25 June 1997, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 III;I. v. Finland, no. 20511/03, §§ 35-36, 17 July 2008;J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 48839/09, §§ 77-79, 20 December 2011;K.U. v. Finland, no. 2872/02, §§ 42-43, ECHR 2008;Kemmache v. France (no. 3), 24 November 1994, § 44, Series A no. 296 C;Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 34, ECHR 2000 V;P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, ECHR 2001 IX;Peck v. the United Kingdom, no. 44647/98, §§ 58-59, ECHR 2003 I;Perry v. the United Kingdom, no. 63737/00, §§ 36-38, ECHR 2003 IX (extracts);Reklos and Davourlis v. Greece, no. 1234/05, § 40, 15 January 2009;Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, §§ 43-44, ECHR 2000 V;Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, §§ 45-48;Schüssel v. Austria (dec.), no. 42409/98, 21 February 2002;Söderman v. Sweden [GC], no. 5786/08, §§ 78-79, ECHR 2013;Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, 23 April 1997, § 50, Reports 1997 III;Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, § 50, ECHR 2004 VI
Hearing: X. and Others v. Austria (no. 19010/07) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-10-03 00:00:00)
Case: X AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2009-01-29 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 8-1, 14
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: X. and Others v. Austria (no. 19010/07) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-10-03 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF X AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2013-02-19 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 8-1, 14, 14+8, 41
Issue: Articles 179 § 2, 180a , 181 § 1, sub-paragraph 2, 181 § 3 and 182 § 2 of the Civil Code ; Article 8 § 4 of the Registered Partnership Act
Conclusion: 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);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);Non-pecuniary damage - award
Strasbourg case-law cited: A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, § 232, ECHR 2010;Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, no. 61498/08, § 128, ECHR 2010 (extracts);Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 60, ECHR 2008;Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 78, ECHR 2002-VI;Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45;E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, 22 January 2008;Emonet and Others v. Switzerland, no. 39051/03, 13 December 2007;Eski v. Austria, no. 21949/03, 25 January 2007;Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, ECHR 2002-I;Gas and Dubois v. France, no. 25951/07, 15 March 2012;Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 72, ECHR 2005-IX;Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, ECHR 2003-IX;Kozak v. Poland, no. 13102/02, 2 March 2010;L. and V. v. Austria, nos. 39392/98 and 39829/98, ECHR 2003-I;Modinos v. Cyprus, 22 April 1993, Series A no. 259;Norris v. Ireland, 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142;P.B. and J.S. v. Austria, no. 18984/02, 22 July 2010;Petrovic v. Austria, 27 March 1998, § 22, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II;S.H. and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 57813/00, § 94, ECHR 2011;Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, no. 33290/96, ECHR 1999-IX;Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, no. 30141/04, ECHR 2010;Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, ECHR 1999-VI;Sporer v. Austria, no. 35637/03, §§ 88-90, 3 February 2011;Wagner and J.M.W.L. v. Luxembourg, no. 76240/01, § 119, 28 June 2007;Zaunegger v. Germany, no. 22028/04, §§ 61-63, 3 December 2009
External sources: Article 7 §§ 1 and 2 of the 2008 European Convention on the Adoption of Children;Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 adopted on 31 March 2010 by the Committee of Ministers
Hearing: Magyar Kétfarkú Kutya Párt v. Hungary (no. 201/17) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-11-21 00:00:00)
Case: MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Articles of the Convention concerned: 10, 10-1
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Magyar Kétfarkú Kutya Párt v. Hungary (no. 201/17) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-11-21 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2018-01-23 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 10, 10-1, 10-2, 35, 35-1, 41
Issue: Article IX (1) of the Fundamental Law ; Section 2(1), (a) and (e) of Act XXXVI of 2013 on Electoral Procedure

Conclusion: Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive information);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, § 116, ECHR 2015;Džinić v. Croatia, no. 38359/13, § 49, 17 May 2016;Erményi v. Hungary, no. 22254/14, § 38, 22 November 2016;Guseva v. Bulgaria, no. 6987/07, § 36, 17 February 2015;Neij and Sunde Kolmisoppi v. Sweden (dec.), no. 40397/12, 20 June 2012;Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59(b), Series A no. 216;Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 49, ECHR 1999-VI;Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy [GC], no. 25358/12, § 169, ECHR 2017;S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, §§ 113-114, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 84, ECHR 2001 IX;Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, § 103, ECHR 2012
Hearing: Magyar Kétfarkú Kutya Párt v. Hungary (no. 201/17) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-11-21 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2020-01-20 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 10, 10-1, 10-2, 41
Issue: Section 2(1), 2(1)a, 2(1)(e), 141, 218 and 218(2)(d) of the Act XXXVI of 2013 on Electoral Procedure (EPA) ; Article 2(1) of the Fundamental Law


Conclusion: Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive ideas);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, §§ 49-50, ECHR 2012;Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-VIII;Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 58, 29 March 2016;Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, nos. 48226/10 and 14027/11, § 54, ECHR 2015 (extracts);Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 141, ECHR 2012;Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, §§ 120-122, ECHR 2015;Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 144, ECHR 2010;Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 51, Series A no. 109;Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, § 65, ECHR 2004 I;Ivinović v. Croatia, no. 13006/13, § 28, 18 September 2014;Jalloh v. Germany (dec.), no. 54810/00, 26 October 2004;Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298;Kovach v. Ukraine, no. 39424/02, §§ 48-62, ECHR 2008;Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, § 115, ECHR 2015;Lykourezos v. Greece, no. 33554/03, §§ 50-58, ECHR 2006 VIII;Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, 8 November 2016;Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, § 67, Series A no. 82;McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107, 10 September 2010;Neij and Sunde Kolmisoppi v. Sweden (dec.), no. 40397/12, 19 February 2013;O’Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, § 199, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, § 61, Series A no. 130;Orlovskaya Iskra v. Russia, no. 42911/08, § 110, 21 February 2017;Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 49, ECHR 1999 VI;Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, § 87, ECHR 2015;Paschalidis, Koutmeridis and Zaharakis v. Greece, nos. 27863/05 and 2 others, §§ 29-35, 10 April 2008;Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, § 136, ECHR 2015 (extracts);Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 41340/98 and 3 others, §§ 87-88 and 100, ECHR 2003 II;Schwarzenberger v. Germany, no. 75737/01, § 31, 10 August 2006;Storck v. Germany (dec.), no. 61603/00, 26 October 2004;Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary, no. 37374/05, 14 April 2009;Uhl v. Germany (dec.), no. 64387/01, 6 May 2004;Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, § 103, ECHR 2012;Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014
Hearing: Baka v. Hungary (no. 20261/12) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-06-17 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF BAKA v. HUNGARY
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-05-27 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 6-1, 10, 10-1, 10-2, 35, 35-3, 41
Issue: Section 74/A(2) of the Organisation and Administration of the Courts Act (Act LXVI of 1997) ; Section 11(2) of the Transitional Provisions of the Fundamental Law of Hungary ; Organisation and Administration of the Courts Bill (no. T/4743)
Conclusion: Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Just satisfaction reserved
Strasbourg case-law cited: Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 64, ECHR 2007 I;Apay v. Turkey (dec.), no. 3964/05, 11 December 2007;Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93;Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131;Dzhidzheva-Trendafilova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 12628/09, §§ 42-50, 9 October 2012;Efendiyeva v. Azerbaijan, no. 31556/03, § 59, 25 October 2007;Erkan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 29840/03, 24 March 2005;G. v. Finland, no. 33173/05, § 34, 27 January 2009;Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18;Hans-Adam von Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 91, ECHR 2001-VIII;Harabin v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62584/00, 9 July 2002;Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, 20 November 2012;Juricic v. Croatia, no. 58222/09, §§ 53-57, 26 July 2011;Kayasu v. Turkey, nos. 64119/00 and 76292/01, §§ 77-79, 13 November 2008;Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, § 193, ECHR 2003-VI;Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 79, 26 February 2009;Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no. 39128/05, §§ 45-56, 20 October 2009;Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, § 99, ECHR 2006 XIV;N.K.M. v. Hungary, no. 66529/11, 14 May 2013;Nazsiz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 22412/05, 26 May 2009;Nedelcho Popov v. Bulgaria, no. 61360/00, § 32, 22 November 2007;Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, §§ 87-91, 9 January 2013;Olujic v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, 5 February 2009;Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, § 66, ECHR 1999 VIII;Petrova and Chornobryvets v. Ukraine, nos. 6360/04 and 16820/04, § 15, 15 May 2008;Pitkevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47936/99, 8 February 2001;Poyraz v. Turkey, no. 15966/06, §§ 55-57, 7 December 2010;Sacilor-Lormines v. France, no. 65411/01, ECHR 2006 XIII;Saygılı and Seyman v. Turkey, no. 51041/99, §§ 24-25, 27 June 2006;Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, § 78, ECHR 2002-IV;Tosti v. Italy (dec.), no. 27791/06, 12 May 2009;Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-II;Volkov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21722/11, 18 October 2011;Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, §§ 42-43, ECHR 1999 VII
Hearing: Molla Sali v. Greece (no. 20452/14) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2017-12-06 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF MOLLA SALI v. GREECE
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2020-06-18 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 41
Conclusion: Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (Article 50), 13 July 1994, § 17, Series A no. 285-C;Brumărescu v. Romania (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 28342/95, § 20, ECHR 2001 I;Chiragov and Others v. Armenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 13216/05, § 59, ECHR 2017;Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 29, ECHR 2000 IV;Cyprus v. Turkey (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 25781/94, § 56, ECHR 2014;De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (Article 50), 10 March 1972, § 16, Series A no. 14;Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC] (just satisfaction), no. 25701/94, § 79, 28 November 2002;Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00, § 90, 22 December 2009;Kurić and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828/06, § 79, ECHR 2014;Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), 31 October 1995, § 38, Series A no. 330-B;S.C. Granitul S.A. v. Romania (just satisfaction), no. 22022/03, § 15, 24 April 2012;Kryvenkyy v. Ukraine, no. 43768/07, § 52, 16 February 2017;Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 40167/06, § 39, 12 December 2017;Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 224, ECHR 2009;Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 71243/01, ECHR 2014
Hearing: Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine (no. 21722/11) (Chamber hearing, 2012-06-12 00:00:00)
Case: VOLKOV v. UKRAINE
Document type: DECISIONS
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 8, 13
Conclusion: Partly inadmissible
Hearing: Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine (no. 21722/11) (Chamber hearing, 2012-06-12 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF OLEKSANDR VOLKOV v. UKRAINE
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2018-02-06 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 37, 37-1-b
Conclusion: Struck out of the list (Article 37-1-b - Matter resolved)
Hearing: Simeonovi v. Bulgaria (no. 21980/04) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-07-06 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF SIMEONOVI v. BULGARIA
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2015-10-20 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 3, 6, 6+6, 6-1, 6-3-c
Conclusion: Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 6+6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)
Hearing: X and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 22457/16) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2020-01-15 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF X AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2019-01-17 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 3, 8, 8-1
Conclusion: No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation;Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Strasbourg case-law cited: A. v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 VI;B.V. v. Belgium, no 61030/08, 2 May 2017;Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no 23380/09, ECHR 2015;Di Salvo v. Italy (dec.), no 16098/05, 11 January 2007;Đorđević v. Croatia, no 41526/10, § 139, ECHR 2012;Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014;M. and C. v. Romania, no 29032/04, § 113, 27 September 2011;M.C. v. Bulgaria, no 39272/98, § 149, ECHR 2003 XII;M.P. and Others v. Bulgaria, no 22457/08, 15 November 2011;Řehák v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no 67208/01, 18 May 2004;S.Z. v. Bulgaria, no 29263/12, 3 March 2015;Szula v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no 18727/06, 4 January 2007;V.C. v. Italy, no 54227/14, 1 February 2018;X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 20, Series A no 91;Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 29392/95, ECHR 2001 V
Hearing: De Souza Ribeiro v. France  (no. 22689/07) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-03-21 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF DE SOUZA RIBEIRO v. FRANCE
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2011-06-30 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 8-1, 13, 13+8, 34
Issue: Articles 511-4, L.514-1 and 2 of the Code regulating the entry and residence of aliens and asylum-seekers
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Art. 13+8
Strasbourg case-law cited: Boyle and Rice c. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no 131;Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 145, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V;Conka v. Belgium, no 51564/99, ECHR 2002-I;Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France (dec.), no 25389/05, § 36, 10 October 2006;Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no 25389/05, § 56, ECHR 2007-V;Jabari v. Turkey, no 40035/98, § 50, ECHR 2000-VIII;Kaftailova v. Latvia, no 59653/00, 21 October 2004;Mikheyeva c. Latvia (dec.), no 50029/99, 12 September 2002;Rotaru c. Romania [GC], no 28341/95, § 67, ECHR 2000-V
Hearing: De Souza Ribeiro v. France  (no. 22689/07) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-03-21 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF DE SOUZA RIBEIRO v. FRANCE
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2012-12-13 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 8-1, 8-2, 13, 13+8, 34, 41
Issue: Article L. 511-4 (2) of the Code regulating the entry and residence of aliens and asylum-seekers
Conclusion: Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8-2 - Interference;Prescribed by law;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Expulsion) (Brazil);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award
Strasbourg case-law cited: Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no 50963/99, § 133, 20 June 2002;Bati and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 136, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts);Boultif v. Switzerland, no 54273/00, § 46, ECHR 2001-IX;Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no 46410/99, § 54, ECHR 2006-XII;Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no 23657/94, § 112, ECHR 1999-IV;Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, §§ 152 à 154, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V;Chamaïev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no 36378/02, § 448, ECHR 2005-III;Conka v. Belgium, no 51564/99, ECHR 2002-I;Doran v. Ireland, no 50389/99, § 57, ECHR 2003-X;G.H.H. and Others v. Turkey, no 43258/98, § 36, ECHR 2000-VIII;Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no 25389/05, ECHR 2007-II;Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no 27765/09, 23 February 2012;I.M. v. France, no 9152/09, 2 February 2012;Jabari v. Turkey, no 40035/98, ECHR 2000-VIII;K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no 25702/94, §§ 140-141, ECHR 2001-VII;Khan v. Royaume-uni, no 35394/97, §§ 44 à 47, ECHR 2000-V;Kudla v. Poland [GC], no 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI;Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, §§ 77 and 81 à 83, Series A no 116;M. and Others v. Bulgaria, no 41416/08, §§ 122 à 132, 26 July 2011;M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no 30696/09, §§ 286-287, ECHR 2011;Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no 28341/95, § 69, ECHR 2000-V;Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no 926/05, § 61, ECHR 2010;Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 122, Series A no 215
Hearing: Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-12-12 00:00:00)
Case: MAKTOUF v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2010-08-31 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 6-1, 7, 7-1
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-12-12 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF MAKTOUF AND DAMJANOVIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2013-07-18 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 6-1, 7, 7-1, 14, 35, 35-1, 41, P12-1
Issue: Articles 24 § 1, 37 § 2, 38 § 1 and § 2 , 43 § 1 and 142 § 1 of the 1976 Criminal Code ; Articles 31 § 1, 42 §§ 1 and 2, 49, 50 § 1 and 173 § 1 of the 2003 Criminal Code
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Heavier penalty;Retroactivity);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient
Strasbourg case-law cited: Achour v. France [GC], no. 67335/01, § 44, ECHR 2006-IV;Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, §§ 65-69, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV;Brudnicka and Others v. Poland, no. 54723/00, § 38, ECHR 2005-II;Camilleri v. Malta, no. 42931/10, 22 January 2013;Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, § 78, Series A no. 80;Ecer and Zeyrek v. Turkey, nos. 29295/95 and 29363/95, ECHR 2001-II;Flux v. Moldova (no. 2), no. 31001/03, § 27, 3 July 2007;Gabarri Moreno v. Spain, no. 68066/01, 22 July 2003;Henryk Urban and Ryszard Urban v. Poland, no. 23614/08, §§ 45-53, 30 November 2010;Jamil v. France, 8 June 1995, Series A no. 317-B;Karmo v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 76965/01, 9 February 2006;Kononov v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04, ECHR 2010;Magee v. the United Kingdom, no. 28135/95, § 50, ECHR 2000 VI;Mirazovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 13628/03, 6 May 2006;Ould Dah v. France (dec.), no. 13113/03, ECHR 2009;Palic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 4704/04, 15 February 2011;S.W. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335-B;Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, 17 September 2009;Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 55, ECHR 2009;Šimšic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 51552/10, 10 April 2012;Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, § 78, ECHR 2002-IV;Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, ECHR 2001-II