TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
Hearing: Georgia v. Russia (I) (no. 13255/07) Just satisfaction (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-06-13 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (I)
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2019-01-31 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 33, 41
Conclusion: Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 60642/08, § 142, ECHR 2014;Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 142, 10 January 2012;Berdzenishvili and Others v. Russia, nos. 14594/07 and 6 others, 20 December 2016;Burmych and Others v. Ukraine (striking out) [GC], nos. 46852/13 et al., 12 October 2017;Chiragov and Others v. Armenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 13216/05, 12 December 2017;Cyprus v. Turkey (just satisfaction), [GC], no. 25781/94, ECHR 2014;Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) [GC], nos. 46113/99 and 7 others, § 69, ECHR 2010;Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 60041/08 and 60054/08, § 97, ECHR 2010 (extracts);Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 94, 22 May 2012;Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, § 202, ECHR 2013;Lisnyy v. Ukraine and Russia, nos. 5355/15, 44913/15 and 50852/15, 5 July 2016;Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 40167/06, 12 December 2017;Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, ECHR 2009
External sources: Articles 30 and 31 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001) of the Commission of International Law (United Nations)
Hearing: Georgia v. Russia (I) (no. 13255/07) Just satisfaction (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-06-13 00:00:00)
Case: GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (I)
Document type: DECISIONS
Articles of the Convention concerned: 33, 35, 35-1
Conclusion: Preliminary objections joined to merits;Admissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period
Strasbourg case-law cited: Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 159, Series A no. 25;Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 68, Reports of Judgments and Decisions, 1996-IV;Denmark v. Turkey (dec), no. 34382/97, 8 June 1999  Eur. Comm. H.R.  Nos. 9940-9944/82, Dec. 6.12.83, DR 35, §§19, 21-22;No. 25781/94, Dec. 28.6.96, D.R. 86
Hearing: Abdi Ibrahim v. Norway (no. 15379/16) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2021-01-27 00:00:00)
Case: ABDI IBRAHIM v. NORWAY
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 8-1, 9, 9-1
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Abdi Ibrahim v. Norway (no. 15379/16) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2021-01-27 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF ABDI IBRAHIM v. NORWAY
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2019-12-17 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 8-1
Conclusion: Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)
Hearing: Abdi Ibrahim v. Norway (no. 15379/16) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2021-01-27 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF ABDI IBRAHIM v. NORWAY
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2021-12-10 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 8-1, 8-2, 9, 9-1, 41
Issue: Child Welfare Act of 17 July 1992
Conclusion: Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) read in the light of Article 9 - (Art. 9) Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Strasbourg case-law cited: A.S. v. Norway, no. 60371/15, §§ 59-61, 17 December 2019;Cînța v. Romania, no. 3891/19, § 26, 18 February 2020;Folgerø and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 15472/02, §§ 54 and 100, ECHR 2007 III;Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, § 311, 1 December 2020;Haddad v. Spain, no. 16572/17, § 79, 18 June 2019;Hernehult v. Norway, no. 14652/16, §§ 61-63, 10 March 2020;Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, § 100, 4 December 2018;İzzettin Doğan and Others v. Turkey [GC], no. 62649/10, §§ 68 and 93, 26 April 2016;Johansen v. Norway (dec.), no. 12750/02, 10 October 2002;K.O. and V.M. v. Norway, no. 64808/16, §§ 59-60, 19 November 2019;Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, 7 December 1976, § 52, Series A no. 23;Lautsi and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 30814/06, § 59, ECHR 2011 (extracts);M.L. v. Norway, no. 64639/16, §§ 77-81 and 98, 22 December 2020;Nagmetov v. Russia [GC], no. 35589/08, §§ 63 and 85, 30 March 2017;Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, § 102, 15 November 2018;Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, § 95, Series A no. 130;Omorefe v. Spain, no. 69339/16, § 70, 23 June 2020;Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06 and 3 others, §§ 53 et seq., ECHR 2011;Pedersen and Others v. Norway, no. 39710/15, §§ 60-62, 10 March 2020;Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 126, 20 March 2018;Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 41, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 48, ECHR 2005-X;Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, 10 September 2019;Tennenbaum v. Sweden (dec.) no. 16031/90, 3 May 1993;X v. the United Kingdom, no. 7626/76, 11 July 1977;Y.I. v. Russia, no. 68868/14, §§ 75-78, 25 February 2020;Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom, 13 August 1981, § 57, Series A no. 44
External sources: Article 20(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted on 20 November 1989
Hearing: Fabris v. France (no. 16574/08) Article 41 - Just satisfaction (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-04-04 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF FABRIS v. FRANCE
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2011-07-21 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 14, 14+P1-1, P1-1, P1-1-1
Issue: Articles 745, 757, 760 and 1075 -1077 of the Civil code ; Article 15 of Law no.2001-1135 of 3 December 2001 &quot;on the rights of the surviving spouse and children born of adultery and modernising various provisions of the law of succession&quot;
Conclusion: No violation of Art. 14+P1-1
Strasbourg case-law cited: Alboize-Barthes and Alboize-Montezume v. France (dec.), no 44421/04, 21 October 2008;Blecic v. Croatia ([GC], no 59532/00, ECHR 2006-III;Brauer v. Germany, no 3545/04, 28 May 2009;De Diego Nafría v. Spain, no 46833/99, § 39, 14 March 2002;E.S. v. France (dec.), 10 February 2009, no 49714/06;Inze v. Austria, 28 October 1987, Series A no 126;Kopecký v. Slovakia (no 44912/98 [CG], § 38, ECHR 2004-IX);Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], no 29515/95, §§ 30-31, ECHR 1999-I;Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII;Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, Series A no 31;Mazurek v. France, no 34406/97, ECHR 2000-II;Merger and Cros v. France, no 68864/01, 22 December 2004;Ostojic v. Croatia (dec.), no 16837/02, ECHR 2002-IX;Pla and Puncernau v. Andorra, no 69498/01, ECHR 2004-VIII;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005-X
Hearing: Fabris v. France (no. 16574/08) Article 41 - Just satisfaction (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-04-04 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF FABRIS v. FRANCE
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2013-06-28 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 37, 37-1-b, 39
Conclusion: Struck out of the list (Article 37-1-b - Matter resolved)
Hearing: Vučković and Others v. Serbia (no. 17153/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-05-15 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF VUČKOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2012-08-28 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 14, 14+P1-1, 35, 35-1, 41, 46, 46-2, P1-1, P1-1-1
Issue: Article 360 § 3 of the Obligations Act ; Memorandum of 16 March 2009
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 14+P1-1 - 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);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - Measures of a general character);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed
Strasbourg case-law cited: Adamsons v. Latvia, no. 3669/03, § 118, 24 June 2008;Atanasovski v. “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, no. 36815/03, § 38, 14 January 2010;Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004;Beian v. Romania (no. 1), no. 30658/05, § …, ECHR 2007-V (extracts);Belgium” v. Belgium (Merits) (judgment of 23 July 1968, Series A no. 6, § 9);Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, ECHR 2008-;Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 66, ECHR 2010;D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007;Dalia v. France, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, pp. 87-88, § 38;Dankevich v. Ukraine, no. 40679/98, § 107, 29 April 2003;García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I;Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 23530/02, § 49-50, 2 July 2009;Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, 7 December 1976, § 56, Series A no. 23;Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII;Nejdet Sahin and Perihan Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 13279/05, 20 October 2011;Paduraru v. Romania, § 98, no. 63252/00, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts);Santos Pinto v. Portugal, no. 39005/04, § 41, 20 May 2008;Savez crkava “Rijec života” and Others v. Croatia, no. 7798/08, §§ 114 and 115, 9 December 2010;Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII;Stefan and Stef v. Romania, nos. 24428/03 and 26977/03, §§ 33-36, 27 January 2009;Stefanica and Others v. Romania, no. 38155/02, § …, 2 November 2010;Tomic and Others v. Montenegro, nos. 18650/09 and others, § 57, 17 April 2012, not yet final;Tudor Tudor v. Romania, no. 21911/03, 24 March 2009;Unédic v. France, no. 20153/04, § 74, 18 December 2008;Vernillo v. France, judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, pp. 11-12, § 27;Vincic and Others v. Serbia, nos. 44698/06 and others, 1 December 2009;Willis v. United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 36, ECHR 2002-IV
Hearing: Vučković and Others v. Serbia (no. 17153/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-05-15 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF VUČKOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA 
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2014-03-25 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 35, 35-1
Issue: Sections 199,  200, 371 and 376 §§ 1-2 of the Obligations Act ; Rules on Travel and Other Expenses in the Yugoslav Army ; Articles 18, 21, 32 and 36 of the Constitution; Section 43 of the Prohibition of Discrimination Act
Conclusion: Preliminary objection allowed (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic remedy)
Strasbourg case-law cited: A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, § 142, ECHR 2010;Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, Reports 1996 IV;Anđelković v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013;Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 32, ECHR 2004 III;Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004;Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 42, ECHR 2008;Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200;Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 236;D v. Ireland (dec.), no. 26499/02, § 85, 28 June 2006;D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, §§ 117 and 118, ECHR 2007 IV;Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) [GC], nos. 46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, § 69, ECHR 2010;Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999 I;Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 144 and 146, ECHR 2010;Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, §§ 122 and 123, 19 June 2012;K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, §§ 140-41, ECHR 2001-VII;McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107, 10 September 2010;Odièvre v. France [GC], no. 42326/98, § 22, ECHR 2003-III;Pérez de Rada Cavanilles v. Spain, 28 October 1998, § 43;Perna v. Italy [GC], no. 48898/99, §§ 23-24, ECHR 2003-V;Rakić and Others v. Serbia, no. 47460/07 and others, § 39, 5 October 2010;Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 89, Series A no. 13;Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 70, 17 September 2009;Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 46, ECHR 2006 II;Thiermann and Others v. Norway (dec.), no. 18712/03, 8 March 2007;Van Oosterwijck, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 40, pp. 16-17, §§ 33-34;Vinčić and Others v. Serbia, nos. 44698/06 and others, § 51, 1 December 2009;Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 54, ECHR 1999 I
Hearing: Medžlis Islamske zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 17224/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-08-31 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF MEDŽLIS ISLAMSKE ZAJEDNICE BRČKO AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2015-10-13 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 10, 10-1, 10-2
Issue: Section 6 of the Defamation Act 2003
Conclusion: No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Busuioc v. Moldova, no. 61513/00, § 88, 21 December 2004;De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, no. 19983/92, § 47, 24 February 1997;Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999 I;Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 42, ECHR 2001 II;Kazakov v. Russia, no. 1758/02, 18 December 2008;Lešník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, § 53, ECHR 2003 IV;Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland [GC], no. 16354/06, § 48, ECHR 2012 (extracts);Savitchi v. Moldova, no. 11039/02, § 59, 11 October 2005;Siryk v. Ukraine, no. 6428/07, § 42, 31 March 2011;Sofranschi v. Moldova, no. 34690/05, §§ 28-32, 21 December 2010;Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 23, 5 October 2006
Hearing: Avotiņš v. Latvia (no. 17502/07) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-04-08 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF AVOTIŅŠ v. LATVIA
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-02-25 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 6-1, 35, 35-1, 35-3-b
Issue: Sections 637 and 644 of the Latvian Civil Procedure Law
Conclusion: Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3-b - No significant disadvantage);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland [GC], no 45036/98, ECHR 2005 VI;Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no 62543/00, § 56, ECHR 2004 III;Grišankova and Grišankovs v. Latvia (dec.), no 36117/02, ECHR 2003 II;S.J. v. Luxembourg, no 34471/04, § 52, 4 March 2008;Joos v. Switzerland, no 43245/07, § 19, 15 November 2012;Liepājnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no 37586/06, § 73, 2 November 2010;McDonald v. France (dec.), no 18648/04, 29 April 2008;Michaud v. France, no 12323/11, § 100, ECHR 2012;Miholapa v. Latvia, no 61655/00, § 23, 31 May 2007;Orams v. Cyprus (dec.), no 27841/07, 10 June 2010;Övüş v. Turkey, no 42981/04, § 47, 13 October 2009;Pellegrini v. Italy, no 30882/96, §§ 40-41, 2001 VIII;Sancho Cruz and 14 other « Agrarian Reform » cases v. Portugal, nos. 8851/07, 8854/07, 8856/07, 8865/07, 10142/07, 10144/07, 24622/07, 32733/07, 32744/07, 41645/07, 19150/08, 22885/08, 22887/08, 26612/08 and 202/09, §§ 33-35, 18 January 2011;Savičs v. Latvia, no 17892/03, §§ 113-114, 27 November 2012;Shefer v. Russia (dec.), no 45175/04, §§ 24-25, 13 March 2012;Sholokhov v. Armenia and Moldova, no 40358/05, § 66, 31 July 2012
External sources: Articles 33-36, 38 et 54 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and and commercial matters (“Brussels I Regulation”)
Hearing: Avotiņš v. Latvia (no. 17502/07) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-04-08 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF AVOTIŅŠ v. LATVIA
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2016-05-23 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 6-1
Issue: Section 230(1) of the Latvian Civil Procedure Law
Conclusion: No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial;Equality of arms)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16  September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 IV;Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, ECHR 2005 VI;Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 197, ECHR 2012;Dhahbi v. Italy, no. 17120/09, §§ 31-34, 8 April 2014;Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, 26 June 1992, § 110, Series A no. 240;García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I;Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, § 56, ECHR 2004-III;Hussin v. Belgium (dec.), no. 70807/01, 6 May 2004;Jeunesse v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 12738/10, § 110, 3 October 2014;M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 338, ECHR 2011;McDonald v. France (dec.), no. 18648/04, 29 April 2008;Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, ECHR 2012;Miholapa v. Latvia, no. 61655/00, § 23, 31 May 2007;Naydenov v. Bulgaria, no. 17353/03, § 50, 26 November 2009;Övüş v. Turkey, no. 42981/04, § 47, 13 October 2009;Pellegrini v. Italy, no. 30882/96, §§ 40-41, ECHR 2001 VIII;Povse v. Austria (dec.), no. 3890/11, 18 June 2013;Robba v. Germany, no. 20999/92, Commission decision of 28 February 1996;S.J. v. Luxembourg, no. 34471/04, § 52, 4 March 2008;Saccoccia v. Austria, no. 69917/01, §§ 60-62, 18 December 2008;Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, § 115, ECHR 2015;Sholokhov v. Armenia and the Republic of Moldova, no. 40358/05, § 66, 31 July 2012;Société Guérin Automobiles v. the 15 States of the European Union (dec.), no. 51717/99, 4 July 2000;Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v. Belgium, nos. 3989/07 and 38353/07, § 62, 20 September 2011;Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, §§ 63 and 72, ECHR 1999 I;X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 98 and 107, ECHR 2013
External sources: Preamble, Articles 34(1) and 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I Regulation);Article 6 (amended) of the Treaty on European Union;Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;Treaty of Lisbon;Dublin II Regulation;Articles 67(1),  81(1) and 82(1) of the TFEU
Hearing: Rooman v. Belgium (no. 18052/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-06-06 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF ROOMAN v. BELGIUM
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2017-07-18 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 3, 5, 5-1, 5-1-e, 34, 41
Conclusion: Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);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: Aerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, § 46, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 V;Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, Series A no 93;Bamouhammad v. Belgium, no 47687/13, §§ 115-123, 17 November 2015;Claes v. Belgium, no 43418/09, 10 January 2013;De Donder and De Clippel v. Belgium, no 8595/06, § 100, 6 December 2011;Dufoort v. Belgium, no 43653/09, §§ 76, 77 and 79, 10 January 2013;Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no 22978/05, § 115, ECHR 2010;Gelaude v. Belgium, no 43733/09, §§ 26-30, 9 January 2014;L.B. v. Belgium, no 22831/08, 2 October 2012;Lankester v. Belgium, no 22283/10, 9 January 2014;Moreels v. Belgium, no 43717/09, §§ 29-33, 9 January 2014;Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no 10511/10, ECHR 2016;Oukili v. Belgium, no 43663/09, §§ 29-33, 9 January 2014;Papillo v. Switzerland, no 43368/08, §§ 41-43, 27 January 2015;Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 13229/03, § 69, ECHR 2008;Saadouni v. Belgium, no 50658/09, §§ 37-41, 9 January 2014;Scordino v. Italy (no 1) [GC], no 36813/97, §§ 179-180, ECHR 2006 V;Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no 36760/06, § 147, ECHR 2012;Swennen v. Belgium, no 53448/10, §§ 69 72, 10 January 2013;Tănase v. Moldova [GC], no 7/08, § 105, ECHR 2010;Torreggiani and Others v. Italy, nos. 43517/09 and 6 others, § 50, 8 January 2013;W.D. v. Belgium, no 73548/13, 6 September 2016;Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 51, Series A no 33;Y.Y. v. Turkey, no 14793/08, §§ 52-55, ECHR 2015 (extracts)
Hearing: G.I.E.M s.r.l v. Italy (no. 1828/06) , Hotel Promotion Bureau s.r.l. and Rita Sarda s.r.l. v. Italy (no. 34163/07) and Falgest s.r.l. and Gironda v. Italy (no. 19029/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-09-02 00:00:00)
Case: G.I.E.M. S.R.L. v. ITALY
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 6-1, 7, 13, P1-1
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: G.I.E.M s.r.l v. Italy (no. 1828/06) , Hotel Promotion Bureau s.r.l. and Rita Sarda s.r.l. v. Italy (no. 34163/07) and Falgest s.r.l. and Gironda v. Italy (no. 19029/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-09-02 00:00:00)
Case: HOTEL PROMOTION BUREAU S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ITALY
Document type: DECISIONS
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 7, 13, 35, P1-1
Conclusion: Partly inadmissible
Hearing: G.I.E.M s.r.l v. Italy (no. 1828/06) , Hotel Promotion Bureau s.r.l. and Rita Sarda s.r.l. v. Italy (no. 34163/07) and Falgest s.r.l. and Gironda v. Italy (no. 19029/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-09-02 00:00:00)
Case: FALGEST S.R.L. AND GIRONDA v. ITALY
Document type: DECISIONS
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 6-1, 6-2, 7, 13, 35, P1-1, P7-2
Conclusion: Partly inadmissible
Hearing: López Ribalda and Others v. Spain (no. 1874/13) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-11-28 00:00:00)
Case: LÓPEZ RIBALDA v. SPAIN and 1 other application
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 6-1, 8, 8-1
Conclusion: Communicated