TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
Hearing: Ilnseher v. Germany (nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2017-11-29 00:00:00)
Case: ILNSEHER v. GERMANY
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Articles of the Convention concerned: 5, 5-1-e, 6, 6-1, 7, 7-1
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Ilnseher v. Germany (nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2017-11-29 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF ILNSEHER v. GERMANY
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2017-02-02 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 5, 5-1, 5-4, 6, 6-1, 7, 7-1
Conclusion: No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Heavier penalty);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal)
Hearing: Murray v. the Netherlands (no. 10511/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-01-14 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF MURRAY v. THE NETHERLANDS
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2013-12-10 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 3
Conclusion: No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)
Hearing: Murray v. the Netherlands (no. 10511/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-01-14 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF MURRAY v. THE NETHERLANDS
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2016-04-26 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 3, 34, 41
Conclusion: Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 34 - Locus standi;Victim);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Strasbourg case-law cited: A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 128, ECHR 2009;Aerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, § 66, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V;Bodein v. France, no. 40014/10, § 61, 13 November 2014;Carrella v. Italy, no. 33955/07, §§ 48-51, 9 September 2014;Creangă v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, § 130, 23 February 2012;Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 28, ECHR 2007 V;Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 123, ECHR 2010;Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 82, Series A no. 244;James, Wells and Lee v. the United Kingdom, nos. 25119/09, 57715/09 and 57877/09, 18 September 2012;K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, ECHR 2001 VII;Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, ECHR 2008;Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 121 and 144 145, ECHR 2015;Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000 XI;Larionovs and Tess v. Latvia (dec.), nos. 45520/04 and 19363/05, § 172, 25 November 2014;László Magyar v. Hungary, no. 73593/10, 20 May 2014;M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 418, ECHR 2011;Maiorano and Others v. Italy, no. 28634/06, §§ 115 122, 15 December 2009;Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000 XII;Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, § 72, ECHR 2002 VIII;Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 128, ECHR 2012;Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 42023/98, § 112, 10 February 2004;Öcalan v. Turkey (no. 2), nos. 24069/03, 197/04, 6201/06 and 10464/07, § 203, 18 March 2014;Raffray Taddei v. France, no. 36435/07, 21 December 2010;Sławomir Musiał v. Poland, no. 28300/06, § 87, 20 January 2009;Trabelsi v. Belgium, no. 140/10, § 137, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom, [GC], nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts)
External sources: Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles in 2007
Hearing: Sharxhi and Others v. Albania (no. 10613/16) (Chamber hearing, 2017-05-23 00:00:00)
Case: SHARXHI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 6-1, 8, 8-1, 13, 14, P1-1
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Mocanu and Others v. Romania (nos 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-10-02 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF MOCANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2012-11-13 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 2, 2-1, 3, 6, 6-1, 35, 41
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award
Strasbourg case-law cited: Association 21 December 1989 and Others v. Romania, nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, 24 May 2011;C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no 1365/07, 13 March 2007;Chirita v. Romania (dec.), no 37147/02, 6 September 2007;Delgado v. France, no 38437/97, Commission decision of 9 September 1998;Dzieciak v. Poland, no 77766/01, § 80, 9 December 2008;Erdogan Yagiz, no 27473/02, §§ 43-44, 6 March 2007;Folgerø and Others v. Norway (dec.), no 15472/02, 14 February 2006;Frandes v. Romania (dec.), no 35802/05, 17 May 2011;Frydlender v. France [GC], no 30979/96, ECHR 2000-VII;Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no 22978/05, § 92, ECHR 2010-...;Güleç v. Turkey, 27 July 1998, §§ 77-78, Reports 1998-IV;Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, §§ 208-213, 24 February 2005;Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV;Lapusan and Others v. Romania, nos. 29007/06, 30552/06, 31323/06, 31920/06, 34485/06, 38960/06, 38996/06, 39027/06 and 39067/06, § 61, 8 March 2011;McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no 28883/95, § 115, ECHR 2001-III;Melinte v. Romania, no 43247/02, §§ 33-36, 9 November 2006;Rupa v. Romania (no 1), no 58478/00, § 90, 16 December 2008;Saileanu v. Romania, no 46268/06, § 50, 2 February 2010;Sandru and Others v. Romania, no 22465/03, 8 December 2009;Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey, 24 April 1998, § 68, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II;Selmouni v. France [GC], no 25803/94, ECHR 1999-V;Sfrijan v. Romania, no 20366/04, §§ 44-48, 22 November 2007;Šilih v. Slovenia, [GC], no 71463/01, §§ 159-163, 9 April 2009;Smirnova and Smirnova v. Russia (dec.), nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, 3 October 2002;Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, §§ 80-81, ECHR 2001-II;Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no 2) [GC], no 32772/02, § 63, ECHR 2009-...;Yasa v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, § 74, Reports 1998-VI
Hearing: Pentikäinen v. Finland (no. 11882/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-12-17 00:00:00)
Case: PENTIKAINEN v. FINLAND
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2011-05-19 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 10
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Pentikäinen v. Finland (no. 11882/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-12-17 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF PENTIKÄINEN v. FINLAND
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-02-04 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 10, 10-1, 10-2
Issue: Section 4 of the Penal Code
Conclusion: No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Barfod v. Denmark, 22 February 1989, § 28, Series A no. 149;Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 58, ECHR 1999-III;De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, 24 February 1997, § 37, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 I;Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I;Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 30, ECHR 1999-I;Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298;Juppala v. Finland, no. 18620/03, § 40, 2 December 2008;Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103;Najafli v. Azerbaijan, no. 2594/07, § 68, 2 October 2012;News Verlags GmbH & Co.KG v. Austria, no. 31457/96, § 52, ECHR 2000-I;Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 44, ECHR 2002 II;Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII;Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30
Hearing: Pentikäinen v. Finland (no. 11882/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-12-17 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF PENTIKÄINEN v. FINLAND
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2015-10-20 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 10, 10-1, 10-2
Issue: Section 19 of the Police Act, in Chapter 1 ; Section 2, subsection 2, of the Coercive Measures Act ; Chapter 16, section 4, of the Penal Code ; Section 24, subsection 2, of the Criminal Investigations Act
Conclusion: No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 100, ECHR 2013 (extracts);Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, ECHR 1999-III;Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 140, ECHR 2012;Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 116, ECHR 2004 XI;Dammann v. Switzerland, no. 77551/01, § 52, 25 April 2006;De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, 24 February 1997, § 37, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 I;Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, ECHR 1999 I;Gsell v. Switzerland, no. 12675/05, § 49, 8 October 2009;Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49 in fine, Series A no. 24;Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298;K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 141, ECHR 2001 VII;Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, §§ 61 and 63-68, 19 April 2011;Kopp v. Switzerland, 25 March 1998, § 59, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II;Krone Verlag GmbH v. Austria, no. 27306/07, §§ 46-47, 19 June 2012;Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no. 176-A;Monnat v. Switzerland, no. 73604/01, § 66, ECHR 2006-X;Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 124, 23 April 2015;Najafli v. Azerbaijan, no. 2594/07, § 67, 2 October 2012;Novaya Gazeta and Borodyanskiy v. Russia, no. 14087/08, § 37, 28 March 2013;Perna v. Italy [GC], no. 48898/99, § 47, ECHR 2003 V;Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V;Stoll v. Switzerland [GC], no. 69698/01, ECHR 2007 V;Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, § 95, 15 May 2014;The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 65, Series A no. 30;The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 2), 26 November 1991, § 51, Series A no. 217;Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), nos. 3002/03 and 23676/03, ECHR 2009;Ungváry and Irodalom Kft v. Hungary, no. 64520/10, § 42, 3 December 2013;Yordanova and Toshev v. Bulgaria, no. 5126/05, §§ 53 and 55, 2 October 2012
Hearing: A.M. v. France (no. 12148/18) (Chamber hearing, 2019-01-22 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF A.M. v. FRANCE
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2019-04-29 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 3, 35, 35-1, 41
Conclusion: No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Algeria)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 69, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 IV;Azzolina and Others v. Italy, nos. 28923/09 and 67599/10, § 105, 26 October 2017;Bahaddar v. the Netherlands, 19 February 1998, §§ 47-48, Reports 1998 I;Baumann v. France, no 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001 V (extracts);Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1855, § 79;Daoudi v. France, no 19576/08, 3 December 2009;F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no 43611/11, §§ 111-118, 23 March 2016;Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no 25389/05, §§ 64-66, ECHR 2007 II;J.K. and Others v. Sweden [GC], no 59166/12, 23 August 2016;Karoussiotis v. Portugal, no 23205/08, § 57, ECHR 2011 (extracts);Kuric and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no 26828/06, § 286, 26 June 2012;M.A. v. France, no 9373/15, 1 February 2018;M.X. v. France (no 21580/10, § 37, 1 July 2014;Micallef v. Malta [GC], no 17056/06, § 55, ECHR 2009;NA. v. the United Kingdom, no 25904/07, § 90, 17 July 2008;Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no 10593/08, § 142, ECHR 2012;Rafaa v. France, no 25393/10, § 33, 30 May 2013;Raninen v. Finland, 16 December 1997, § 41, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII;Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 89, Series A no 13;Saadi v. Italy [GC], no 37201/06, § 128, ECHR 2008;Sahin Alpay v. Turkey, no 16538/17, § 86, 20 March 2018;Selmouni v. France [GC], no 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V;Stanka Mirkovic and Others v. Montenegro, nos. 33781/15 and 3 others, § 48, 7 March 2017;Trabelsi v. Belgium, no 140/10, § 89, ECHR 2014 (extracts);X v. the Netherlands, no 14319/17, § 72, 10 July 2018;Y.P. and L.P. v. France, no 32476/06, § 53, 2 September 2010
Hearing: Michaud v. France (nos. 12323/11) (Chamber hearing, 2012-10-02 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF MICHAUD v. FRANCE
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2012-12-06 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 8-1, 8-2, 34, 35
Issue: Decision of the National Bar Council of 12 July 2007 “adopting regulations on internal procedures for implementing the obligation to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, and an internal supervisory mechanism to guarantee compliance with those procedures” ; Article 21-1 of the Law of 31 December 1971 ; Law no. 2004-130 of 11 February 2004 ; Monetary and Financial Code
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life)
Strasbourg case-law cited: André and Other v. France, no 18603/03, 24 July 2008;Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [GC], no 45036/98, ECHR 2005-VI;Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 13378/05, §§ 33-34, ECHR 2008;Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, §§ 44 and 46-48, Series A no 233;Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 41, Series A no 28;Ekinci and Akalin v. Turkey, no 77097/01, § 47, 30 January 2007;Frérot v. France, no 70204/01, §§ 53-54, 12 June 2007;Grifhorst v. France, no 28336/02, § 93, 26 February 2009;Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 42, Series A no 112;Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 52, Series A no 260-A;Kopp v. Switzerland, 25 March 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II;M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no 30696/09, ECHR 2011;Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 27, Series A no 31;Mor v. France, no 28198/09, 15 December 2011;Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, Series A no 251-B;Norris v. Ireland, 26 October 1988, §§ 30-34 and 38, Series A no 142;Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no 51772/99, ECHR 2003-IV;Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no 50882/99, 27 September 2005;Schönenberger and Durmaz v. Switzerland, 20 June 1988, Series A no 137;Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, §§ 56-88, Series A no 61;Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no 74336/01, §§ 65-66, ECHR 2007-IV;Xavier Da Silveira v. France, no 43757/05, § 36-37 and 43, 21 January 2010
External sources: Directive 91/308/EEC, 10 June 1991;Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union;Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;Articles 169, 170, 173, 175, 177, 184 and 189 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;Recommendations 12 and 16 of the financial action task  force (“FATF”) on money laundering;Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism  (16 May 2005)
Hearing: Jeunesse v. the Netherlands (no.12738/10)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-11-13 00:00:00)
Case: JEUNESSE v. THE NETHERLANDS
Document type: DECISIONS
Articles of the Convention concerned: 3, 5, 5-1-f, 5-4, 5-5, 8, 13, 14, 14+8, 35, P4-3, P12-1
Conclusion: Partly admissible;Partly inadmissible
Hearing: Jeunesse v. the Netherlands (no.12738/10)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-11-13 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF JEUNESSE v. THE NETHERLANDS
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2014-10-03 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 8-1, 41
Issue: Aliens Act 1965 ; Aliens Act 2000 ; Article 3 of the Agreement between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Suriname concerning the assignment of nationality

Conclusion: Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award
Strasbourg case-law cited: Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 94, § 68;Ahmut v. the Netherlands, 28 November 1996, § 63, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 VI;Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999;Arvelo Aponte v. the Netherlands, no. 28770/05, §§ 57-58, 3 November 2011;B.V. v. Sweden (dec.), no. 57442/11, 13 November 2012;Benamar v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 43786/04, 5 April 2005;Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, ECHR 2001 IX;Butt v. Norway, no. 47017/09, § 78, 4 December 2012;Chandra and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 53102/99, 13 May 2003;Darren Omoregie and Others v. Norway, no. 265/07, § 64, 31 July 2008;Djokaba Lambi Longa v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 33917/12, § 81, 9 October 2012;M. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 25087/06, 24 June 2008;Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, ECHR 2008;Mitchell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 40447/98, 24 November 1998;Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, § 135, ECHR 2010;Nunez v. Norway, no. 55597/09, § 66, 28 June 2011;Popov v. France, nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, §§ 139-140, 19 January 2012;Priya v. Denmark (dec.), no. 13594/03, 6 July 2006;Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, no. 50435/99, ECHR 2006-I;Savasci v. Germany (dec.), no. 45971/08, 19 March 2013;Tuquabo-Tekle and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 60665/00, § 44, 1 December 2005;Udeh v. Switzerland, no. 12020/09, 16 April 2013;Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v. Belgium, nos. 3989/07 and 38353/07, § 54, 20 September 2011;Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, ECHR 2006 XII;Useinov v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 61292/00, 11 April 2006;X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, § 96, ECHR 2013
Hearing: Chiragov and Others v. Armenia (no. 13216/05)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-01-22 00:00:00)
Case: CHIRAGOV AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
Document type: DECISIONS
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 13, 14, 34, 35, 35-1, 35-2, 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;Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no 59532/00, §§ 70 and 86, ECHR 2006-III;Chrysostomos, Papachrysostomou and Loizidou v. Turkey, nos. 15299/89, 15300/89 and 15318/89, DR 68, p. 287;Cyprus v. Turkey, no. 8007/77, §§ 104, 174-175 and 184-186, decision of 10 July 1978, Decisions and Reports (DR) 13, p. 228;David v. Moldova, no. 41578/05, § 28, 27 February 2008;Demades v. Turkey, no. 16219/90, §§ 14-17, 31 July 2003;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, ECHR/ECHR 2010;Dogan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 8803-8811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02, §§ 111-114, ECHR 2004-VI;Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey, no. 16163/90, §§ 15-18, 31 July 2003;Folgerø and Others v. Norway (dec.), no. 15472/02, 14 February 2006;Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, ECHR 2007-III;Içyer v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18888/02, § 73, ECHR 2006-I;Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-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 [GC], no. 15318/89, §§ 41-47 and 62-63, ECHR 1996-VI;M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 251, 21 January 2011;Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC] (dec.), 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;OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, 14902/04, §§ 520-526, 20 September 2011;Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece, 24 June 1993, §§ 39-46, Series A no. 260-B;Preussische Treuhand GmbH & 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. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, 18 September 2009;Varnava and Others v. Turkey, nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, decision of the Commission,14 April 1998, Decisions and Reports 93-B, pp. 5, 14;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;Zalyan, Sargsyan and Serobyan v. Armenia (déc), nos. 36894/04 and 3521/07, 11 October 2007
External sources: Articles 25 and 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969
Hearing: Chiragov and Others v. Armenia (no. 13216/05)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-01-22 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF CHIRAGOV AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2017-12-12 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 8-1, 13, 35, 35-3-a, 41, P1-1, P1-1-1
Conclusion: Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - 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, § 222, 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, § 85, ECHR 2010;Doğan and Others v. Turkey (just satisfaction), nos. 8803/02 and 14 others, § 61, 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, § 109, ECHR 2000-IX;Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98 and 2 others, §§ 255-256, 3 October 2008 Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) [GC], nos. 46113/99 and 7 others, § 85, ECHR 2010;Kurić and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828/06, ECHR 2014;Loizidou v. Turkey (Article 50), 28 July 1998, Reports 1998 IV;Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, 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