taltwi/LaCour huggingface dataset:
SARGSYAN v. AZERBAIJAN
Hearing: Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan (no. 40167/06)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-02-05 00:00:00)
Application no.: 40167/06
Document type: DECISIONS
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:1214DEC004016706
Respondent state: AZE
Articles of the Convention: 8;13;14;34;35;35-1;35-3;P1-1
Judges: Alvina Gyulumyan;Christos Rozakis;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Françoise Tulkens;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Jean-Paul Costa;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Luis López Guerra;Nicolas Bratza;Peer Lorenzen;Sverre Erik Jebens
Represented by: GASPARYAN  N. ; OHANYAN K.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, §§ 131-132 and 138-139 , 7 July 2011 l;Belilos v. Switzerland, 29 April 1988, § 49, Series A no. 132;Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, §§ 70 and 86, ECHR 2006-III;Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, 14 December 2011;Chrysostomos, Papachrysostomou and Loizidou v. Turkey, nos.15299/89, 15300/89 and 15318/89, D. R. 68, p. 216, at p. 250;Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, §§ 104, 175 and 189, ECHR 2001-IV;Cyprus v. Turkey, no. 8007/77, decision of 10 July 1978, D.R. 13, p. 85 at p. 154;Demades v. Turkey, no. 16219/90, §§ 14-17, 31 July 2003;Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.), nos. 46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, ECHR 2010-..;Dogan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 8803-8811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02, §§ 111-114 and 139, ECHR 2004-VI;Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey, no. 16163/90, §§ 15-18, 31 July 2003;Içyer v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18888/02, § 73, ECHR 2006-I;Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC] (dec.), no. 48787/99, 4 July 2001;Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 310-313, ECHR 2004-VII;Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 52, ECHR 2000-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 (merits), 18 December 1996, §§ 41-47 and 62-64, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI;Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, § 89, Series A no. 310;M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 251, 21 January 2011;Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], 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;Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece, 24 June 1993, §§ 39-46, Series A no. 260-B;Preussische Treuhand GmbH and 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. 16064-66/90 and 16068-73/90, §§ 159, 161 and 170, ECHR 2009-...;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
External sources: Articles 25 and 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969
Conclusion: Admissible
CASE OF CHIRAGOV AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
Hearing: Chiragov and Others v. Armenia (no. 13216/05)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-01-22 00:00:00)
Application no.: 13216/05
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2017-12-12 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:1212JUD001321605
Respondent state: ARM
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;13;35;35-3-a;41;P1-1;P1-1-1
Judges: Angelika Nußberger;Armen Harutyunyan;Branko Lubarda;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis López Guerra;Mārtiņš Mits;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turković
Represented by: MULLER M. ; VINE C. ; BUTLER M. ; IVERS M. ; POYNOR B. ; SWAROOP S. ; YILDIZ K.
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
Conclusion: Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: FALSE
AL NASHIRI v. POLAND
Hearing: Al Nashiri v. Poland (no. 28761/11) and Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland (no. 7511/13) (Chamber hearing, 2013-12-03 00:00:00)
Application no.: 28761/11
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2012-07-10 00:00:00
Respondent state: POL
Articles of the Convention: 2;3;5;5-1;6;8;8-1;10;13;P6-1;P6-2
Represented by: GOLDSTON J.A. ; SKILBECK R. ; SINGH A. ; HOLLANDER N.
Conclusion: Communicated
Separate opinion: FALSE
CASE OF JEUNESSE v. THE NETHERLANDS
Hearing: Jeunesse v. the Netherlands (no.12738/10)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-11-13 00:00:00)
Application no.: 12738/10
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2014-10-03 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:1003JUD001273810
Respondent state: NLD
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;41
Judges: Alvina Gyulumyan;Ann Power-Forde;Corneliu Bîrsan;Dean Spielmann;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Luis López Guerra;Mark Villiger;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Vincent A. De Gaetano
Represented by: LATER G.
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

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
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
Separate opinion: TRUE
JEUNESSE v. THE NETHERLANDS
Hearing: Jeunesse v. the Netherlands (no.12738/10)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-11-13 00:00:00)
Application no.: 12738/10
Document type: DECISIONS
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:1204DEC001273810
Respondent state: NLD
Articles of the Convention: 3;5;5-1-f;5-4;5-5;8;13;14;14+8;35;P4-3;P12-1
Judges: Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria
Represented by: LATER G.
Conclusion: Partly admissible;Partly inadmissible
CASE OF H. v. FINLAND
Hearing: Hamalainen v. Finland (no. 37359/09) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-10-16 00:00:00)
Application no.: 37359/09
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2012-11-13 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:1113JUD003735909
Respondent state: FIN
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2;12;14;14+8;35
Judges: George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
Represented by: UOTI K.
Issue: Section 2, subsection 1, of the Act on Confirmation of the Gender of a Transsexual
Strasbourg case-law cited: Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 60, ECHR 2008;Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, ECHR 2002-VI;E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, § 47, 22 January 2008;Grant v. the United Kingdom, no. 32570/03, ECHR 2006-VII;Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, ECHR 2003-IX;Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 49, Series A no. 290;L. and V. v. Austria, nos. 39392/98 and 39829/98, § 45, ECHR 2003-I;L. v. Lithuania, no. 27527/03, ECHR 2007-IV;Parry v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42971/05, 28 November 2006;Petrovic v. Austria, 27 March 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II;Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 65, ECHR 2002-III;R. and F. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35748/05, 28 November 2006;Rees v. the United Kingdom, 17 October 1986, § 49, Series A no. 106;Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, no. 30141/04, ECHR 2010;Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, § 90, ECHR 1999-VI;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 65731/01, § 52, ECHR 2006-VI;Van Kück v. Germany, no. 35968/97, ECHR 2003-VII
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life)
Separate opinion: FALSE
H. v. FINLAND
Hearing: Hamalainen v. Finland (no. 37359/09) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-10-16 00:00:00)
Application no.: 37359/09
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2010-03-23 00:00:00
Respondent state: FIN
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2;14
Represented by: UOTI K.
Conclusion: Communicated
Separate opinion: FALSE
CASE OF NATSVLISHVILI AND TOGONIDZE v. GEORGIA
Hearing: Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v. Georgia (no. 9043/05) (Chamber hearing, 2013-10-15 00:00:00)
Application no.: 9043/05
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-04-29 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0429JUD000904305
Respondent state: GEO
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;6-2;34;P1-1;P1-1-1;P7-2
Judges: Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria
Represented by: GIOSHVILI M. ; FILEEVA E. ; KOROTEEV K.
Issue: Articles 679-3 §§ 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, 679-4 § 5 and 679-7 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 105, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 IV;Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 105, Reports 1996-VI;Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308;Anguelov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 45963/99, 14 December 2004;Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos. 24027/07, 11949/08 and 36742/08, ECHR 6 July 2010;Balenović v. Croatia (dec.), no. 28369/07, 30 September 2010;Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, ECHR 2000 X;Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, § 125, 15 November 2007;Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 73, ECHR 2006 XII;Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, §§ 162-163, ECHR 2012 (extracts);Konstas v. Greece, no. 53466/07, 24 May 2011;Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 96, ECHR 2001 II;Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 159, Reports 1998 III;Kuzmin v. Russia, no. 58939/00, §§ 51-63, 18 March 2010;Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 37, Series A no. 62;Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia, no. 798/05, § 68, 15 September 2009;Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v. Georgia (dec.), no. 9043/05, § 84, 25 June 2013;Ninn-Hansen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 28972/95, ECHR 1999 V;Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 31, Series A no. 277-A;Ruciński v. Poland, no. 33198/04, § 12, 20 February 2007;Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 135, 17 September 2009;Shuvalov v. Estonia, no. 39820/08 and 14942/09, § 82, 29 May 2012;Slavcho Kostov v. Bulgaria, no. 28674/03, § 17, 27 November 2008
Conclusion: No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Right of appeal in criminal matters (Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Higher tribunal;Review of conviction;Review of sentence);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)
Separate opinion: TRUE
NATSVLISHVILI AND TOGONIDZE v. GEORGIA
Hearing: Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v. Georgia (no. 9043/05) (Chamber hearing, 2013-10-15 00:00:00)
Application no.: 9043/05
Document type: DECISIONS
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0625DEC000904305
Respondent state: GEO
Articles of the Convention: 3;5;5-1;5-3;5-4;6;6-1;6-2;6-3-a;6-3-b;13;34;35;P1-1;P7-2
Judges: Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria
Represented by: GIOSHVILI M. ; KOBAKHIDZE M.
Conclusion: Partly admissible;Partly inadmissible
CASE OF MOCANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Hearing: Mocanu and Others v. Romania (nos 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-10-02 00:00:00)
Application no.: 10865/09
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2012-11-13 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:1113JUD001086509
Respondent state: ROU
Articles of the Convention: 2;2-1;3;6;6-1;35;41
Judges: Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Florin Streteanu;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra
Represented by: MATEI I. ; POPESCU A. ; SFIRAIALA I.; NACEA D.
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
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
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF MOCANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Hearing: Mocanu and Others v. Romania (nos 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-10-02 00:00:00)
Application no.: 45886/07
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2012-11-13 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:1113JUD001086509
Respondent state: ROU
Articles of the Convention: 2;2-1;3;6;6-1;35;41
Judges: Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Florin Streteanu;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra
Represented by: MATEI I. ; POPESCU A. ; SFIRAIALA I.; NACEA D.
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
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
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF MOCANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Hearing: Mocanu and Others v. Romania (nos 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2013-10-02 00:00:00)
Application no.: 32431/08
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2012-11-13 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:1113JUD001086509
Respondent state: ROU
Articles of the Convention: 2;2-1;3;6;6-1;35;41
Judges: Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Florin Streteanu;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra
Represented by: MATEI I. ; POPESCU A. ; SFIRAIALA I.; NACEA D.
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
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
Separate opinion: TRUE