taltwi/LaCour huggingface dataset:
CASE OF DUBSKÁ AND KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Hearing: Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic (nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12 ) (Chamber hearing, 2013-09-10 00:00:00)
Application no.: 28859/11
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2016-11-15 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1115JUD002885911
Respondent state: CZE
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;András Sajó;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Lemmens;Síofra O'Leary
Represented by: ZAHUMENSKY D. ; HOREJSI R.
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
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)
Conclusion: No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF DUBSKÁ AND KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Hearing: Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic (nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12 ) (Chamber hearing, 2013-09-10 00:00:00)
Application no.: 28859/11
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-12-11 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:1211JUD002885911
Respondent state: CZE
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2;35
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens
Represented by: ZAHUMENSKY D. ; HOREJSI R.
Issue: Medical Services Act
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)
Conclusion: No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Separate opinion: TRUE
DUBSKÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Hearing: Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic (nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12 ) (Chamber hearing, 2013-09-10 00:00:00)
Application no.: 28859/11
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2012-09-03 00:00:00
Respondent state: CZE
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1
Represented by: ZAHUMENSKY D.
Conclusion: Communicated
Separate opinion: FALSE
CASE OF DUBSKÁ AND KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Hearing: Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic (nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12 ) (Chamber hearing, 2013-09-10 00:00:00)
Application no.: 28473/12
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2016-11-15 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1115JUD002885911
Respondent state: CZE
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;András Sajó;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Lemmens;Síofra O'Leary
Represented by: ZAHUMENSKY D. ; HOREJSI R.
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
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)
Conclusion: No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF DUBSKÁ AND KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Hearing: Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic (nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12 ) (Chamber hearing, 2013-09-10 00:00:00)
Application no.: 28473/12
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-12-11 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:1211JUD002885911
Respondent state: CZE
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2;35
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens
Represented by: ZAHUMENSKY D. ; HOREJSI R.
Issue: Medical Services Act
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)
Conclusion: No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Separate opinion: TRUE
KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Hearing: Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic (nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12 ) (Chamber hearing, 2013-09-10 00:00:00)
Application no.: 28473/12
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2012-09-03 00:00:00
Respondent state: CZE
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;14
Represented by: HOREJSI R.
Conclusion: Communicated
Separate opinion: FALSE
CENTER OF LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU v. ROMANIA
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)
Application no.: 47848/08
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2011-06-07 00:00:00
Respondent state: ROU
Articles of the Convention: 2;3;5;8;13;13+2;13+3;13+8;14;14+2;14+3;14+5
Represented by: N/A
Conclusion: Communicated
Separate opinion: FALSE
ALISIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, CROATIA, SERBIA, SLOVENIA AND "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
Hearing: Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 60642/08) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-07-10 00:00:00)
Application no.: 60642/08
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2010-02-23 00:00:00
Respondent state: BIH
Articles of the Convention: 13;14;P1-1;P1-1-1
Represented by: MUJCIN B.
Conclusion: Communicated
Separate opinion: FALSE
CASE OF MARGUŠ v. CROATIA
Hearing: Marguš v. Croatia (no. 4455/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-06-26 00:00:00)
Application no.: 4455/10
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2012-11-13 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:1113JUD000445510
Respondent state: HRV
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;6-3-c;P7-4
Judges: Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Peer Lorenzen
Represented by: SABOLIC P.
Issue: General Amnesty Act of 24 September 1996
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
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)
Separate opinion: FALSE
CASE OF VUČKOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA 
Hearing: Vučković and Others v. Serbia (no. 17153/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-05-15 00:00:00)
Application no.: 17153/11
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2014-03-25 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0325JUD001715311
Respondent state: SRB
Articles of the Convention: 35;35-1
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;Alvina Gyulumyan;András Sajó;David Thór Björgvinsson;Dean Spielmann;Françoise Tulkens;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Kristina Pardalos;Mark Villiger;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Ksenija Turković
Represented by: ALEKSIC S. ; ISAILOVIC B. 
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
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
Conclusion: Preliminary objection allowed (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic remedy)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF VUČKOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
Hearing: Vučković and Others v. Serbia (no. 17153/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-05-15 00:00:00)
Application no.: 17153/11
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2012-08-28 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0828JUD001715311
Respondent state: SRB
Articles of the Convention: 14;14+P1-1;35;35-1;41;46;46-2;P1-1;P1-1-1
Judges: András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Guido Raimondi;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre
Represented by: ALEKSIC S.
Issue: Article 360 § 3 of the Obligations Act ; Memorandum of 16 March 2009
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
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
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF SÖDERMAN v. SWEDEN
Hearing: Söderman v. Sweden (no. 5786/08 ) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-04-03 00:00:00)
Application no.: 5786/08
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2013-11-12 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:1112JUD000578608
Respondent state: SWE
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;41
Judges: André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Corneliu Bîrsan;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Karel Jungwiert;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
Represented by: SODERGREN J. ; LEWIS K. ; CRAFOORD C.
Issue: Tort Liability Act ; Chapter 6, Article 7 § 3 and Chapter 16, Article 10a of the Penal Code  ; Freedom of the Press Act ; Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression
Strasbourg case-law cited: A v. Croatia, no. 55164/08, § 60, 14 October 2010;Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 32, Series A no. 32;Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27021/08, § 117, ECHR 2011;Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria, no. 71127/01, § 65, 12 June 2008;Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, no. 32457/04, § 64, 27 November 2007;C.A.S. and C.S. v. Romania, no. 26692/05, 20 March 2012;Đorđević v. Croatia, no. 41526/10, §§141-43, ECHR 2012;Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 77, ECHR 2007 I;K.U. v. Finland, no. 2872/02, §§ 45-49, ECHR 2008-V;M. and C. v. Romania, no. 29032/04, §§ 112 et seq., 27 September 2011;M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, ECHR 2003 XII;M.P. and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 22457/08, §§ 109 110, 15 November 2011;Mosley v. the United Kingdom, no. 48009/08, § 109, 10 May 2011;Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 245, ECHR 2012;Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 13279/05, § 49, 20 October 2011;Odièvre v. France [GC], no. 42326/98, § 46, ECHR 2003 III;Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, §§ 128-30, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 VIII, §§ 128-30;Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 65, ECHR 2002 III;Reklos and Davourlis v. Greece, no. 1234/05, 15 January 2009;Sandra Janković v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 45, 5 March 2009;Schüssel v. Austria (dec.), no. 42409/98, 21 February 2002;Siliadin v. France, no. 73316/01, § 130, ECHR 2005 VII;Szula v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 18727/06, 4 January 2007;Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, ECHR 2012;X and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 19010/07, § 163, ECHR 2013;X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91;Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 73, ECHR 2001 V
Conclusion: Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF E.S. v. SWEDEN
Hearing: Söderman v. Sweden (no. 5786/08 ) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-04-03 00:00:00)
Application no.: 5786/08
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2012-06-21 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0621JUD000578608
Respondent state: SWE
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1
Judges: André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger
Represented by: SODERGREN J.
Issue: Sections 1-13 of Chapter 6, sections 10a and 17 of Chapter 16 and section 1 of Chapter 23 of the Penal Code ; Chapter 17, section 3 and Chapter 30, section 3 of the Code of Judicial Procedure ; sections 1 and 3 of Chapter 2 of the Tort Liability Act
Strasbourg case-law cited: A v. Croatia, no. 55164/08, § 60, 14 October 2010;Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 32, Series A no. 32;Bladh v. Sweden (dec.), no. 46125/06, §§ 23-27, 10 November 2009;Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 74, ECHR 2002-VI;Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 77, ECHR 2007-I;Fexler v. Sweden, no. 36801/06, § 44, 13 October 2011;K.U. v. Finland, no. 2872/02, 2 December 2008;Korbely v. Hungary [GC], no. 9174/02, §§70-71, ECHR 2008;M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, ECHR 2003-XII;Mosley v. the United Kingdom, no. 48009/08, § 109, 10 May 2011;Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V;Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, § 104, 7 February 2012;Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, § 70, ECHR 2004-VI;X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91
External sources: Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse
Conclusion: No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Separate opinion: TRUE