TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
Hearing: Marguš v. Croatia (no. 4455/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-06-26 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF MARGUŠ v. CROATIA
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2012-11-13 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 6-1, 6-3-c, P7-4
Issue: General Amnesty Act of 24 September 1996
Conclusion: No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-c - Defence in person);No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Acquittal;Conviction)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, no. 32446/96, § 55, 2 November 2004;Balliu v. Albania, no. 74727/01, § 25, 16 June 2005;De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 26, Series A no. 86;Egmez v. Cyprus, no. 30873/96, § 71, ECHR 2000-XII;Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy, 7 August 1996, § 58, Reports 1996-III;Gautrin and Others v. France, § 58, 20 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III;Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, § 38;Mežnaric v. Croatia, no. 71615/01, § 32, 15 July 2005;Micallef v. Malta, no. 17056/06, §§ 74-75, 15 January 2008;Okkali v. Turkey, no 52067/99, § 76, 17 October 2006;Ould Dah v. France (dec.), no. 13113/03, ECHR 2009;S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 43, ECHR 2002-V;Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, § 82, ECHR 2009;Turan Cakir v. Belgium, no. 44256/06, § 69, 10 March 2009;Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, § 63-68, 15 December 2005;Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, §§ 43-44, ECHR 2000-XII;Yesil and Sevim v. Turkey, no. 34738/04, § 38, 5 June 2007
External sources: Article 3 § 1 of the Fourth Geneva Convention;Article 4 §§ 1, 2(a) and 13 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) of 8 June 1977
Hearing: Nasr and Ghali v. Italy (no. 44883/09) (Chamber hearing, 2015-06-23 00:00:00)
Case: NASR AND GHALI v. ITALY
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2011-11-22 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 3, 6, 6-1, 8, 8-1, 8-2, 13
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Jeronovičs v. Latvia (no. 44898/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-07-01 00:00:00)
Case: JERONOVIČS v. LATVIA
Document type: DECISIONS
Articles of the Convention concerned: 3, 6, 13, 35
Conclusion: Partly inadmissible
Hearing: Parillo v. Italy (no. 46470/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-06-18 00:00:00)
Case: PARRILLO v. ITALY
Document type: DECISIONS
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 10, 35, 35-3, P1-1
Conclusion: Partly inadmissible
Hearing: Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (no. 47287/15) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-04-18 00:00:00)
Case: ILIAS AND AHMED v. HUNGARY
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Articles of the Convention concerned: 3, 5, 5-1
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Center for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania (no. 47848/08) (Grand Chamber Judgment hearing, 2013-09-04 00:00:00)
Case: CENTER OF LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU v. ROMANIA
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2011-06-07 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 13+2, 13+3, 13+8, 14, 14+2, 14+3, 14+5
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Hanan v. Germany (no. 4871/16) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2020-02-26 00:00:00)
Case: HANAN v. GERMANY
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Articles of the Convention concerned: 2, 2-1, 13
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Animal Defenders International c. United Kingdom (no. 48876/08) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-03-07 00:00:00)
Case: ANIMAL DEFENDERS INTERNATIONAL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2011-01-18 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 10
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Savickis and Others v. Latvia (no. 49270/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2021-05-26 00:00:00)
Case: SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Articles of the Convention concerned: 14, P1-1
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-11-25 00:00:00)
Case: IBRAHIM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND OTHER APPLICATIONS
Document type: DECISIONS
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 6-1, 6-3-c, 6-3-d, 35
Conclusion: Partly inadmissible
Hearing: Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-11-25 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF IBRAHIM AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-12-16 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 6+6-3-c, 6-1, 6-3, 6-3-c
Issue: Paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000 ; Paragraph 6.7 of Code C ; Sections 76 and 78 PACE

Conclusion: No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia, no. 39660/02, 18 February 2010;Bandaletov v. Ukraine, no. 23180/06, 31 October 2013;Beggs v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15499/10, § 124, 16 October 2012;Brennan v. the United Kingdom, no. 39846/98, § 45, ECHR 2001 X;Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 90, 10 March 2009;Çimen v. Turkey, no. 19582/02, § 26, 3 February 2009;Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, § 33, 13 October 2009;Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, ECHR 2010;Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, §§ 37-38, Series A no. 275;John Murray v. the United Kingdom, 8 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 I;Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 30663/04, § 42, 18 December 2008;Magee v. the United Kingdom, no. 28135/95, § 41, ECHR 2000 VI;Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 77, 20 January 2005;Mustafa (Abu Hamza) v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31411/07, § 40, 18 January 2011;Panovits v. Cyprus, no. 4268/04, §§ 81-82, 11 December 2008;Pishchalnikov v. Russia, no. 7025/04, 24 September 2009;Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, § 94, 2 November 2010;Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008;Şedal v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38802/08, § 33, 13 May 2014;Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, § 67, 26 June 2008;Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, § 84, 16 November 2010;Titarenko v. Ukraine, no. 31720/02, § 87, 20 September 2012;Yoldaş v. Turkey, no. 27503/04, 23 February 2010
Hearing: Naït-Liman v. Switzerland (no. 51357/07) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2017-06-14 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF NAIT-LIMAN v. SWITZERLAND
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2016-06-21 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 6-1
Conclusion: No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no 35763/97, ECHR 2001 XI;Anheuser-Busch Inv. v. Portugal [GC], no 73049/01, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2007 I;Arlewin v. Sweden, no 22302/10, §§ 72 et seq., 1 March 2016;Běleš and Others v. the Czech Republic, no 47273/99, § 49, ECHR 2002 IX;Cudak v. Lithuania [GC], no 15869/02, § 57, ECHR 2010;Eşim v. Turkey, no 59601/09, § 18, 17 September 2013;Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, Series A no 18;Howald Moor and Others v. Switzerland, nos. 52067/10 and 41072/11, 11 March 2014;Jones and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 34356/06 and 40525/06, 14 January 2014;Kopp v. Switzerland, 25 March 1998, § 59, Reports 1998 II;Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no 176 A;Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no 10593/08, ECHR 2012;Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no 41615/07, § 131, ECHR 2010;Nusret Kaya and Others v. Turkey, nos. 43750/06, 43752/06, 32054/08, 37753/08 and 60915/08, § 38, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Stagno v. Belgium, no 1062/07, § 25, 7 July 2009;Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no 36760/06, § 230, ECHR 2012;Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1996, § 50, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 IV;Yabansu and Others v. Turkey, no 43903/09, § 58, 12 November 2013
Hearing: Naït-Liman v. Switzerland (no. 51357/07) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2017-06-14 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF NAÏT-LIMAN v. SWITZERLAND
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2018-03-15 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 6, 6-1
Issue: Article 41 of the Swiss Code of Obligations ; Section 3 of the Federal Act on Private International Law of 18 December 1987 (LDIP) (Forum of necessity)
Conclusion: No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inv. v. Switzerland [GC], no 5809/08, ECHR 2016;Anheuser-Busch Inv. v. Portugal [GC], no 73049/01, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2007‑I;Arlewin v. Sweden, no 22302/10, § 142, 1 March 2016;Baka v. Hungary [GC], no 20261/12, § 120, ECHR 2016;Bayatyan v. Armenia [GC], no 23459/03, § 122, ECHR 2011;Běleš and Others v. the Czech Republic, no 47273/99, § 49, ECHR 2002 IX;Benthem v. the Netherlands, 23 October 1985, § 32, Series A no 97;Eşim v. Turkey, no 59601/09, § 18, 17 September 2013;Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, Series A no 18;Hämäläinen v. Finland [GC], no 37359/09, §§ 72-75, ECHR 2014;Hornsby v. Greece, 19 March 1997, §§ 40-45, Reports 1997 II;Howald Moor and Others v. Switzerland, nos. 52067/10 and 41072/11, §§ 70-71, 11 March 2014;Kopp v. Switzerland, 25 March 1998, § 59, Reports 1998‑II;Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no 176‑A;Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 71, ECHR 2016 (extracts)Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no 18030/11, § 138, ECHR 2016;Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no 10593/08, § 169, ECHR 2012;Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no 41615/07, § 131, ECHR 2010;Nusret Kaya and Others v. Turkey, nos. 43750/06, 43752/06, 32054/08, 37753/08 and 60915/08, § 38, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 81, Series A no 52;Stagno v. Belgium, no 1062/07, § 25, 7 July 2009;Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no 36760/06, § 230, ECHR 2012;Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1996, § 50, Reports 1996 IV;Yabansu and Others v. Turkey, no 43903/09, § 58, 12 November 2013
External sources: Resolution 60/147 of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 16 December 2005;Articles 31 § 3 (c) and 32 of the  Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969;Articles 5 § 2 and 14 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984 (States Parties’ jurisdiction in criminal matters and universal civil jurisdiction);General Comment no. 3 (2012) of the United Nations Committee against Torture on the Implementation of Article 14 by States parties (CAT/C.GC/3, 13 December 2012;Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ);Article 16 of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Access to courts);Institute of International Law, Tallinn Session Resolution 2015 entitled “Universal Civil Jurisdiction with regard to Reparation for International Crimes” and its background report
Hearing: Ladele v. United Kingdom (no. 51671/10), McFarlane v. United Kingdom (no. 36516/10), Eweida v. United Kingdom (no. 48420/10) & Chaplin v. United Kingdom (no. 59842/10) (Chamber hearing, 2012-09-04 00:00:00)
Case: LADELE AND McFARLANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2011-04-12 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 9, 9-1, 14, 14+9
Conclusion: Communicated
Hearing: Vilnes and Others v. Norway (nos. 52806/09 & 22703/10) (Chamber hearing, 2012-09-18 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF VILNES AND OTHERS v. NORWAY
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2013-12-05 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 2, 2-1, 3, 8, 8-1, 35, 41
Issue: Article 121 of the 1967 Diving Regulation ; Articles 3.4 (1) and 3(k) of the 1978 Regulation Appendix
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman punishment;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);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 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award
Strasbourg case-law cited: Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 67, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 IV;Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, ECHR 2008 (extracts);Clift v. the United Kingdom, no. 7205/07, §§ 56-59, 13 July 2010;Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, §§ 57-60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 I;Kingsley v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35605/97, § 40, ECHR 2002 IV;Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, §§ 29 and 30, Series A no. 269;Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 17423/05, 20534/05, 20678/05, 23263/05, 24283/05 and 35673/05, §§ 157-161, 28 February 2012;López Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994, 55, Series A no. 303 C;McGinley and Egan v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, §§ 98-104, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 III;Muñoz Díaz v. Spain, no. 49151/07, ECHR 2009;Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 73, ECHR 1999-II;Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, ECHR 2004 XII;Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, §§ 155-169, ECHR 2005 X;Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, §§ 36 to 40, Series A no. 40
Hearing: Albert and Others v. Hungary (no. 5294/14) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2019-12-18 00:00:00)
Case: ALBERT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Document type: DECISIONS
Articles of the Convention concerned: 34, 35, P1-1
Conclusion: Admissible
Hearing: Albert and Others v. Hungary (no. 5294/14) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2019-12-18 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF ALBERT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2019-01-29 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 34, P1-1, P1-1-1
Issue: Sections 15 and 17/C of the Integration Act
Conclusion: No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, §§ 65 and 66, Series A no. 330 A;Albert and Others v. Hungary (dec.), no. 5294/14, 4 April 2017;Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, 27 June 2000;Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 80, ECHR 2012;Credit and Industrial Bank v. the Czech Republic, no. 29010/95, §§ 50 to 52, ECHR 2003 XI (extracts);Dinçer and Others v. Turkey, no. 10435/08, §§ 13 and 14, 3 November 2011;Feldman and Slovyanskyy Bank v. Ukraine, no. 42758/05, §§ 28 and 29, 21 December 2017;G.J. v. Luxembourg, no. 21156/93, § 24, 26 October 2000;Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, § 40, ECHR 2007;Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003;Olczak v. Poland (dec.), no. 30417/96, ECHR 2002 X (extracts);Petrović v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos. 30721/15, §§ 15 and 16, 22 June 2017
Hearing: Béláné Nagy v. Hungary (no. 53080/13) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-12-16 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF BÉLÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2015-02-10 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 35, 41, P1-1, P1-1-1
Conclusion: Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);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, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑IV;Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 50, Reports 1996 III;Aunola v. Finland (dec.), no. 30517/96, 15 March 2001;Banfield v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 6223/04, 18 October 2005;Béla Szabó v. Hungary, no. 37470/06, 9 December 2008;Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39794/98, § 73, ECHR 2002 VII;Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos. 46720/99, 72203/01 and 72552/01, §§ 81-94, ECHR 2005-VI;Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, ECHR 2004 IX;Lakićević and Others v. Montenegro and Serbia, nos. 27458/06, 37205/06, 37207/06 and 33604/07, § 70, 13 December 2011;Maggio and Others v. Italy, nos. 46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08, § 62, 31 May 2011;Moskal v. Poland, no. 10373/05, § 39, 15 September 2009;Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009;Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69-74, Series A no. 52;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005 X;Terazzi S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 27265/95, § 85, 17 October 2002;Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 48, Series A no. 70;Wieczorek v. Poland, no. 18176/05, 8 December 2009
External sources: Article 57 § 1(b) of the ILO Convention on Social Security;Ethical guidelines of the WHO’s document on International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
Hearing: Janowiec and Others v. Russia (nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-02-13 00:00:00)
Case: JANOWIEC AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Document type: DECISIONS
Articles of the Convention concerned: 2, 3, 6, 8, 13
Conclusion: Partly admissible;Partly inadmissible
Hearing: Fernandez Martinez v. Spain (no. 56030/07) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-01-30 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF FERNÁNDEZ MARTÍNEZ v. SPAIN
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2012-05-15 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 8-1, 35
Issue: Article 16 § 3 of the Constitution ; Canon 805 of the Code of Canon Law
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Ahtinen v. Finland, no 48907/99, § 41, 23 September 2008;Bigaeva v. Greece, no 26713/05, § 23, 28 May 2009;Campagnano v. Italy, no 77955/01, § 53, ECHR 2006-V;Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 28957/95, § 90, ECHR 2002-VI;Dahlab v. Switzerland (dec.), no 42393/98, ECHR 2001-V;Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 6339/05, ECHR 2007-IV;Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, no 39293/98, § 38, 29 February 2000;Gatt v. Malta, no 28221/08, § 19, 27 July 2010;Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no 30985/96, §§ 62 and 78, ECHR 2000-XI;Jusic v. Switzerland, no 4691/06, § 99, 2 December 2010;K.A. and A.D. v. Belgium, no 42758/98 and 45558/99, § 83, 17 February 2005;Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no 44774/98, § 108, ECHR 2005-XI;Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no 39128/05, § 38, 20 October 2009;Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no 39128/05, § 41, 20 October 2009;Mólka v. Poland (dec.), no 56550/00, ECHR 2006-IV;Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 29, Series A no 251-B;Obst v. Germany, no 425/03, 23 September 2010;Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002-III;Rommelfanger v. Germany, no 12242/86, decision of the Commission du 6 September 1989, Decisions and Reports no 62;Schüth v. Germany, no 1620/03, ECHR 2010;Sidabras and Džiautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 43, ECHR 2004-VIII;Siebenhaar v. Germany, no 18136/02, 3 February 2011;Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 95, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts);Svyato-Mykhaylivska Parafiya v. Ukraine, no 77703/01, § 146, 14 June 2007
External sources: Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation
Hearing: Fernandez Martinez v. Spain (no. 56030/07) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-01-30 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF FERNÁNDEZ MARTÍNEZ v. SPAIN
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2014-06-12 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 8, 8-1, 8-2, 9, 9-1, 10, 10-1, 11, 11-1
Issue: Agreement of 3 January 1979 between Spain and the Holy See on education and cultural affairs ; Order of 11 October 1982 on teachers of Catholic religion and ethics in secondary educational centres ; Canons 804 and 805 of the Code of Canon Law ; Article 16 § 3 of the Constitution
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: Bigaeva v. Greece, no 26713/05, § 23, 28 May 2009;C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria, no 1365/07, § 39, 24 April 2008;Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 28957/95, § 90, ECHR 2002 VI;Coster v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 24876/94, § 104, 18 January 2001;Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no 25735/94, § 52, ECHR 2000 VIII;Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 6339/05, §§ 75-76, ECHR 2007 IV;Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, no 39293/98, § 38, 29 February 2000;Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no 30985/96, ECHR 2000 XI;Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 412/03 and 35677/04, § 10, 22 January 2009;Kopp v. Switzerland, 25 March 1998, § 55, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 II;Leyla Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no 44774/98, ECHR 2005 XI;Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no 39128/05, 20 October 2009;Martínez Martínez v. Spain, no 21532/08, § 57, 18 October 2011;Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, no. 45701/99, § 118, ECHR 2001 XII;Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia, no 798/05, 15 September 2009;Mółka v. Poland (dec.), no 56550/00, ECHR 2006 IV;Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no 41615/07, § 99, ECHR 2010;Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 29, Series A no 251 B;Obst v. Germany, no 425/03, 23 September 2010;Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no 21722/11, § 165-167, ECHR 2013;Özpınar v. Turkey, no 20999/04, §§ 43-48, 19 October 2010;Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002 III;S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, §§ 101-102, ECHR 2008;Sahin v. Germany [GC], no 30943/96, § 68, ECHR 2003 VIII;Schüth v. Germany, no 1620/03, ECHR 2010;Siebenhaar v. Germany, no 18136/02, 3 February 2011;Sindicatul “Păstorul cel Bun” v. Romania [GC], no 2330/09, 9 July 2013;Svyato-Mykhaylivska Parafiya v. Ukraine, no 77703/01, § 146, 14 June 2007;Von Hannover v. Germany (no 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 104-107, ECHR 2012;W. v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1987, §§ 62 and 64, Series A no 121