TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
Hearing: Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic (nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-12-02 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF DUBSKÁ AND KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-12-11 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 8-1, 8-2, 35
Issue: Medical Services Act
Conclusion: No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Strasbourg case-law cited: A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, 16 December 2010;Connors v. the United Kingdom, no. 66746/01, § 82, 27 May 2004;Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 66, ECHR 2007-V;Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 71, ECHR 2007 I;Haas v. Switzerland, no. 31322/07, § 50, 20 January 2011;Haase v. Germany, no. 11057/02, § 93, ECHR 2004 III (extracts);Odièvre v. France, [GC], no. 42326/98, § 29, ECHR 2003 III;Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002 III;Stubing v. Germany, no. 43547/08, § 60, 12 April 2012;Tysiąc v. Poland, no. 5410/03, § 107, ECHR 2007 I
External sources: Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women’s Concluding Observations on the Czech Republic of 22 October 2010 (CEDAW/C/CZE/CO/5)
Hearing: Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic (nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-12-02 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF DUBSKÁ AND KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2016-11-15 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 8-1, 8-2
Issue: Health Care in Private Health-Care Institutions Act ; Decree no. 424/2004 of the Ministry of Health ; Decree no. 55/2011 of the Ministry of Health ; Decree no. 221/2010 of the Ministry of Health ; Decree no. 92/2012 of the Ministry of Health
Conclusion: No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Strasbourg case-law cited: A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, ECHR 2010;Fernández Martinez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 124, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Hristozov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 47039/11 and 358/12, ECHR 2012 (extracts);Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, ECHR 2005-IX;Odièvre v. France [GC], no. 42326/98, § 29, ECHR 2003-III;Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, ECHR 2015;S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 101, ECHR 2008;S.H. and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 57813/00, ECHR 2011;Shelley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23800/06, 4 January 2008;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2006-VI;Ternovszky v. Hungary, no. 67545/09, 14 December 2010;Van Der Heijden v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 42857/05, § 56, 3 April 2012
External sources: Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on the Czech Republic of 22 October 2010 (CEDAW/C/CZE/CO/5)
Hearing: Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic (nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12 ) (Chamber hearing, 2013-09-10 00:00:00)
Case: DUBSKÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2012-09-03 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 8-1
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic (nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12 ) (Chamber hearing, 2013-09-10 00:00:00)
Case: KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2012-09-03 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 8-1, 14
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic (nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12 ) (Chamber hearing, 2013-09-10 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF DUBSKÁ AND KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-12-11 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 8-1, 8-2, 35
Issue: Medical Services Act
Conclusion: No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Strasbourg case-law cited: A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, 16 December 2010;Connors v. the United Kingdom, no. 66746/01, § 82, 27 May 2004;Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 66, ECHR 2007-V;Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 71, ECHR 2007 I;Haas v. Switzerland, no. 31322/07, § 50, 20 January 2011;Haase v. Germany, no. 11057/02, § 93, ECHR 2004 III (extracts);Odièvre v. France, [GC], no. 42326/98, § 29, ECHR 2003 III;Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002 III;Stubing v. Germany, no. 43547/08, § 60, 12 April 2012;Tysiąc v. Poland, no. 5410/03, § 107, ECHR 2007 I
External sources: Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women’s Concluding Observations on the Czech Republic of 22 October 2010 (CEDAW/C/CZE/CO/5)
Hearing: Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic (nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12 ) (Chamber hearing, 2013-09-10 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF DUBSKÁ AND KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2016-11-15 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 8-1, 8-2
Issue: Health Care in Private Health-Care Institutions Act ; Decree no. 424/2004 of the Ministry of Health ; Decree no. 55/2011 of the Ministry of Health ; Decree no. 221/2010 of the Ministry of Health ; Decree no. 92/2012 of the Ministry of Health
Conclusion: No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Strasbourg case-law cited: A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, ECHR 2010;Fernández Martinez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 124, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Hristozov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 47039/11 and 358/12, ECHR 2012 (extracts);Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, ECHR 2005-IX;Odièvre v. France [GC], no. 42326/98, § 29, ECHR 2003-III;Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, ECHR 2015;S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 101, ECHR 2008;S.H. and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 57813/00, ECHR 2011;Shelley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23800/06, 4 January 2008;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2006-VI;Ternovszky v. Hungary, no. 67545/09, 14 December 2010;Van Der Heijden v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 42857/05, § 56, 3 April 2012
External sources: Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on the Czech Republic of 22 October 2010 (CEDAW/C/CZE/CO/5)
Hearing: Tarakhel v. Switzerland (no. 29217/12) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-02-12 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF TARAKHEL v. SWITZERLAND
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2014-11-04 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 3, 35, 41
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Italy);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient
Strasbourg case-law cited: Aksu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 4149/04 and 41029/04, § 43, ECHR 2012;Beldjoudi v. France, 26 March 1992, §§ 79 and 86, Series A no 234-A;Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland ([GC], no 45036/98, ECHR 2005 VI;Budina v. Russia, (dec.), no 45603/05, 18 June 2009;Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 27238/95, § 99, ECHR 2001 I;Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 I;H.L.R. v. France, 29 April 1997, § 34, Reports 1997-III;Halil Yüksel Akıncı v. Turkey, no 39125/04, § 54, 11 December 2012;Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no 27765/09, § 198, ECHR 2012;Jabari v. Turkey, no 40035/98, § 38, ECHR 2000 VIII;Kudła v.  Poland [GC], no 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI;M. and Others v. Bulgaria, no 41416/08, §§ 105 and 143, 26 July 2011;M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece ([GC], no 30696/09, ECHR 2011;Michaud v. France, no 12323/11, §§ 102-104, ECHR 2012;Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy ((dec.), no 27725/10, § 78, 2 April 2013;Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium, no 13178/03, § 55, ECHR 2006 XI;Müslim v. Turkey, no 53566/99, 26 April 2005;Nizamov and Others v. Russia, nos. 22636/13, 24034/13, 24334/13, 24328/13, § 50, 7 May 2014;Popov v. France, nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, 19 January 2012;Saadi v. Italy [GC], no 37201/06, § 152, ECHR 2008;Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no 1948/04, § 135, ECHR 2007 I;Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, §§ 90-91, Series A no 161;Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 103, Series A no 125
External sources: Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (“the Dublin Regulation”);Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;Report by Nils Muižnieks, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, published on 18 September 2012, following his visit to Italy from 3 to 6 July 2012 (CommDH(2012)26)
Hearing: Morice v. France (no. 29369/10)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-05-21 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF MORICE v. FRANCE
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2013-07-11 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 6-1, 10, 10-1, 41
Conclusion: Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award
Strasbourg case-law cited: Amihalachioaie v. Moldova, no 60115/00, §§ 27-28, ECHR 2004-III;Brunet-Lecomte and Others v. France, no 42117/04, 5 February 2009, § 51;Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 54, Series A no 285-A;Cumpana and Mazare v. Romania [GC], no 33348/96, § 111, ECHR 2004-XI;Foglia v. Switzerland, no 35865/04, § 95, 13 December 2007;Huglo Lepage and Associés SCP v. France (dec.), no 59477/00, 30 March 2004;July and Sarl Libération v. France, no 20893/03, § 66, ECHR 2008 (extracts);Kudeshkina v. Russia, no 29492/05, § 94, 26 February 2009;Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, ECHR 2007-XI;Micallef v. Malta, [GC], no 17056/06, ECHR 2009;Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no 313, § 34;Radio France and Others v. France du 30 March 2004, no 53984/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-II;Remli v. France, 23 April 1996, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II;Rizos and Daskas v. Greece, no. 65545/01, § 43, 27 May 2004;Roussin v. France (dec.), no 44674/08, 19 October 2010;Schöpfer v. Switzerland, 20 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III;Selmouni v. France [GC], no 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V
Hearing: Navalnyy v. Russia (nos. 29580/12, 36847/12, 11252/13, 12317/13 and 43746/14) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-01-24 00:00:00)
Case: NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Articles of the Convention concerned: 3, 5, 5-1, 5-1-c, 6, 6-1, 6-3-b, 6-3-c, 6-3-d, 10, 10-1, 10-2, 11, 11-1, 11-2
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Navalnyy v. Russia (nos. 29580/12, 36847/12, 11252/13, 12317/13 and 43746/14) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-01-24 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2017-02-02 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 5, 5-1, 6, 6-1, 11, 11-1, 11-2, 41
Issue: Articles 19.3, 27.2 and 27.3 of the Code of the Administrative Offences
Conclusion: Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012;Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007 III;Ezelin v. France, 26 April 1991, § 37, Series A no. 202;Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012;Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, 5 January 2016;Giulia Manzoni v. Italy, 1 July 1997, § 25, Reports 1997 IV;Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013;Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, ECHR 2015;Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, 30 May 2013;Mikhaylova v. Russia, no. 46998/08, §§ 57-69, 19 November 2015;Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014;Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, § 83, 31 July 2014;;Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07, 57569/11, 80153/12, 5790/13 and 35015/13, 26 April 2016;Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, § 42, ECHR 2006 XIV;Schwabe and M.G. v. Germany, nos. 8080/08 and 8577/08, § 101, ECHR 2011 (extracts);Volkov and Adamskiy v. Russia, nos. 7614/09 and 30863/10, §§ 68 and 71, 26 March 2015
Hearing: Hassan v. the United Kingdom (no. 29750/09)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-12-11 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF HASSAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2014-09-16 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 1, 5, 5-1, 5-2, 5-4, 15, 15-1, 35
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)
Strasbourg case-law cited: A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, ECHR 2009;Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI;Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 55, ECHR 2001 XI;Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27021/08, ECHR 2011;Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, no. 61498/08, § 120, ECHR 2010;Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, ECHR 2011;Banković and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, § 62, ECHR 2001 XII;Brannigan and McBride v. the United Kingdom, 26 May 1993, Series A no. 258 B;El Masri v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” [GC], no. 39630/09, § 151-230, ECHR 2012;Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, § 29;Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 102, Series A no. 39;Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 196, Series A no. 25;Jėčius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 47-52, ECHR 2000-IX;Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 122, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 III;Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000 IV;Lawless v. Ireland (no. 3), 1 July 1961, §§ 13 and 14, Series A no. 3;McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000;Members (97) of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Georgia, no. 71156/01, § 97, 3 May 2007;Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 31, ECHR 2005 XII;Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, §§ 67-74, ECHR 2008;Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, §§ 102-103, Series A no. 161;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, § 185, ECHR 2009
External sources: International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion on The Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, para. 25;International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion on The Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, para. 106;International Court of Justice, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) v. Uganda), Judgment, paras. 215-216;Articles 4A and 21 of the Third Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War;Articles 42, 43 and 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War;Article 2 common to the four Geneva Conventions;Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Hearing: Al Nashiri v. Romania (no. 33234/12) (Chamber hearing, 2016-06-29 00:00:00)
Case: AL NASHIRI v. ROMANIA
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2012-09-18 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 2, 3, 5, 5-1, 6, 8, 8-1, 10, 13, P6-1, P6-2
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Al Nashiri v. Romania (no. 33234/12) (Chamber hearing, 2016-06-29 00:00:00)
Case: AL NASHIRI v. ROMANIA
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Articles of the Convention concerned: 2, 2-1, 3, 5, 5-1, 8, 8-1
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Gouarre Patte v. Andorra (no. 33427/10) (Chamber hearing, 2015-05-19 00:00:00)
Case: GOUARRE PATTE v. ANDORRA
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2011-05-23 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 7, 13
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Gouarre Patte v. Andorra (no. 33427/10) (Chamber hearing, 2015-05-19 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF GOUARRÉ PATTE v. ANDORRA
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2016-01-12 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 7, 7-1, 13, 13+7-1, 35, 41
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Retroactivity);Violation of Article 13+7-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 7 - No punishment without law;Article 7-1 - Retroactivity);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: Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 27021/08, ECHR 2011;Gardel v. France, no 16428/05, §§ 40 and ss. ECHR 2009;Jėčius v. Lithuania, no 34578/97, ECHR 2000 IX;Scoppola v. Italy, no 50550/06, 10 June 2008;Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece, 29 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 III;Vanyan v. Russia, n 53203/99, § 56, 15 December 2005;X v. Federal Republic of Germany, no 7900/77, decision of the Commission of 6 March 1978, Decisions and Reports (DR) 13, pp. 70-72
Hearing: Lhermitte v. Belgium (no. 34238/09) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-01-27 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF LHERMITTE v. BELGIUM
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2015-05-26 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 6-1, 35
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Agnelet v. France, no 61198/08, §§ 56-62, 10 January 2013;Castellino v. Belgium (dec.), no 504/08, § 22, 22 May 2012;Castellino v. Belgium, no 504/08, § 38, 25 July 2013;Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no 21906/04, § 97, ECHR 2008;Legillon v. France, no 53406/10, § 61, 10 January 2013;Papon v. France (dec.), no 54210/00, ECHR 2001-XII;Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no 36391/02, § 54, ECHR 2008;Saric v. Denmark (dec.), no 31913/96, 2 February 1999;Suominen v. Finland, no 37801/97, § 37, 1 July 2003;Tatishvili v. Russia, no 1509/02, § 58, ECHR 2007-III;Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no 926/05, ECHR 2010;Taxquet v. Belgium, no 926/05, §§ 71-74, 13 January 2009;Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts);Voica v. France, no 60995/09, § 49, 10 January 2013;Zarouali v. Belgium, no 20664/92, decision of the Commission of 29 June 1994, Decisions and Reports 78, p. 97
Hearing: Lhermitte v. Belgium (no. 34238/09) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-01-27 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF LHERMITTE v. BELGIUM
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2016-11-29 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 6-1
Conclusion: No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Agnelet v. France, no. 61198/08, §§ 56-62, 10 January 2013;Bernard v. France, 23 April 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II;Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 22251/08, ECHR 2015;Bodein v. France, no. 40014/10, 13 November 2014;Castellino v. Belgium, no. 504/08, 25 July 2013;Devriendt v. Belgium, no. 32001/07, 17 February 2015;Fraumens v. France, no. 30010/10, 10 January 2013;Gybels v. Belgium, no. 43305/09, 18 November 2014;Hechtermans v. Belgium, no. 56280/09, 18 November 2014;Judge v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35863/10, 8 February 2011;Khaledian v. Belgium, no. 42874/09, 18 November 2014;Kurt v. Belgium, no. 17663/10, 17 February 2015;Legillon v. France, no. 53406/10, 10 January 2013;Magy v. Belgium, no. 43137/09, 24 February 2015;Maillard v. Belgium, no. 23530/08, 17 February 2015;Oulahcene v. France, no. 44446/10, 10 January 2013;Papon v. France (dec.), no. 54210/00, ECHR 2001-XII;Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 54, ECHR 2008;Saric v. Denmark (dec.), no. 31913/96, 2 February 1999;Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1998, § 46, Series A no. 140;Shala v. Norway (dec.), no. 1195/10, 10 July 2012;Suominen v. Finland, no. 37801/97, § 37, 1 July 2003;Tatishvili v. Russia, no. 1509/02, § 58, ECHR 2007-III;Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, §§ 22-42, ECHR 2010;Voica v. France, no. 60995/09, 10 January 2013;Yimam v. Belgium, no. 39781/09, 18 November 2014
Hearing: Centrum för rättvisa v. Sweden (no. 35252/08) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2019-07-10 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF CENTRUM FÖR RÄTTVISA v. SWEDEN
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2018-06-19 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 8-1, 8-2, 34
Issue: Signals Intelligence Act (2008) ; Foreign Intelligence Act (2000) ; Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act (2009) ; FRA Personal Data Processing Act (2007)
Conclusion: Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, 28 June 2007;Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, 10 February 2009;Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, 18  May 2010;Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28;Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, 1 July 2008;Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, ECHR 2015;Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary, no. 37138/14, 12 January 2016;Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006-XI
External sources: Report of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (“Venice Commission”) on the Democratic Oversight of Signals Intelligence Agencies (December 2015)