taltwi/LaCour huggingface dataset:
CASE OF VINTER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Hearing: Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom (no. 66069/09, 130/10 et 3896/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-11-28 00:00:00)
Application no.: 3896/10
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2013-07-09 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0709JUD006606909
Respondent state: GBR
Articles of the Convention: 3;41
Judges: András Sajó;Ann Power-Forde;David Thór Björgvinsson;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Lech Garlicki;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis López Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nebojša Vučinić;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Lemmens;Paul Mahoney
Represented by: CREIGHTON S. ; WEATHERBY P. ; VAN ZYL SMIT D. ; WOODS B. ; HORWELL R. ; HINDMARSH L. ; CHIVERS SOLICITORS, BINGLEY ; McKONE M.
Issue: The Criminal Justice Act 2003 ; The 1998 Human Rights Act
Strasbourg case-law cited: Boulois v. Luxembourg [GC], no. 37575/04, § 83, ECHR 2012;Choreftakis and Choreftaki v. Greece, no. 46846/08, § 45, 17 January 2012;Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 75, ECHR 2007-V;Gillberg v. Sweden [GC], no. 41723/06, § 53, 3 April 2012;Kafkaris v. Cyprus, [GC], no. 21906/04, ECHR 2008-...;Maiorano and Others v. Italy, no. 28634/06, 15 December 2009;Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, § 72, ECHR 2002-VIII;Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 65, ECHR 2002-III;Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI;T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, 16 December 1999;V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX;V.C. v. Slovakia, no. 18968/07, § 105, ECHR 2011 (extracts)
External sources: Rule 103 of the European Prison Rules;COE Committee of Ministers Resolution 76(2);COE Committee of Ministers Recommendation 2003(23) (on the management by prison administrations of life sentence and other long-term prisoners);
COE Committee of Ministers Recommendation 2003(22) (on conditional release);The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners;Article 10 § 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;Article 110(4) and (5) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;Rules 223 and 224 of the ICC’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence;The CPT’s report on its visit to Switzerland from 10-20 October 2011 (25 October 2012 CPT/Inf (2012) 26)
Conclusion: Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF VINTER  AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Hearing: Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom (no. 66069/09, 130/10 et 3896/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-11-28 00:00:00)
Application no.: 3896/10
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2012-01-17 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0117JUD006606909
Respondent state: GBR
Articles of the Convention: 3;35
Judges: David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano
Represented by: CREIGHTON S. ; WOODS B. ; Chivers Solicitors
Strasbourg case-law cited: Hussain v. the United Kingdom and Prem Singh v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1996, Reports 1996-I at paragraphs 53 and 61;Kafkaris v. Cyprus (no. 2) (dec.), no. 9644/09, 21 June 2011;Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 104, Series A no. 161;Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, ECHR 2002-IV
External sources: Articles 77 and 110 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF X v. LATVIA
Hearing: X. v. Latvia (no. 27853/09) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-10-10 00:00:00)
Application no.: 27853/09
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2013-11-26 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:1126JUD002785309
Respondent state: LVA
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2;41
Judges: Alvina Gyulumyan;Angelika Nußberger;Corneliu Bîrsan;Dean Spielmann;Egbert Myjer;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis López Guerra;Mark Villiger;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
Represented by: STRAUSS R.
Issue: Section 644 of the Latvian Civil Procedure Act
Strasbourg case-law cited: Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 50, ECHR 2000 II;Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37;B. v. Belgium, no. 4320/11, §§ 70-72, 10 July 2012;Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC), no. 34503/97, § 67, ECHR 2008-...;Eskinazi and Chelouche v. Turkey (dec.), no. 14600/05, ECHR 2005 XIII (extracts);García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999 I;Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A;Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain, no. 56673/00, § 51, ECHR 2003 V;Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 95, 25 January 2000;K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 154, ECHR 2001 VII;Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, § 341, ECHR 2012-...;Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections), 23 March 1995, § 93, Series A no. 310;M. R. and L. R. v. Estonia (dec.), no. 13420/12, § 37, 15 May 2012;Maire v. Portugal, no. 48206/99, § 72, ECHR 2003 VII;Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, § 91, ECHR 2008-...;Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 79, 6 December 2007;Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, 12 September 2012, ECHR 2012-...;Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland, ([GC], no. 41615/07, §§ 49-55, ECHR 2010-...;Raban v. Romania, no. 25437/08, § 28, 26 October 2010;Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 100, ECHR 2003 X;Šneersone and Kampanella, no. 14737/09, 12 July 2011
External sources: Articles 3, 11, 13 b) and 20 of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction;Article 24 § 2 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights;Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (known as “Brussels II bis Regulation”)
Conclusion: Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF X v. LATVIA
Hearing: X. v. Latvia (no. 27853/09) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-10-10 00:00:00)
Application no.: 27853/09
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2011-12-13 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:1213JUD002785309
Respondent state: LVA
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2;41
Judges: Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra
Represented by: STRAUSS R.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Bronda v. Italy, 9 June 1998, § 52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV;Eskinazi and Chelouche v. Turkey (dec.), no. 14600/05, 6 December 2005;García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I;Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A;Iosub Caras v. Romania, no. 7198/04, § 41, 27 July 2006;Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 27, Series A no. 176-A;Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, 6 December 2007;Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, § 138, 6 July 2010;Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 69, ECHR 1999-II;Sahin v. Germany [GC], no. 30943/96, § 73, ECHR 2003-VIII;Šneersone and Kampanella v. Italy, no. 14737/09, 12 July 2011, § 95;Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, § 64, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts);The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 49, Series A no. 30;W. v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1987, § 64, Series A no. 121
External sources: Article 3 and 13b of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction;Australian Family Law Act 1975
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 8;Non-pecuniary damage - award
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF X AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
Hearing: X. and Others v. Austria (no. 19010/07) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-10-03 00:00:00)
Application no.: 19010/07
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2013-02-19 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0219JUD001901007
Respondent state: AUT
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;14;14+8;41
Judges: Anatoly Kovler;André Potocki;Dean Spielmann;Egbert Myjer;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Lech Garlicki;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Peer Lorenzen;Vincent A. De Gaetano
Represented by: GRAUPNER H.
Issue: Articles 179 § 2, 180a , 181 § 1, sub-paragraph 2, 181 § 3 and 182 § 2 of the Civil Code ; Article 8 § 4 of the Registered Partnership Act
Strasbourg case-law cited: A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, § 232, ECHR 2010;Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, no. 61498/08, § 128, ECHR 2010 (extracts);Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 60, ECHR 2008;Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 78, ECHR 2002-VI;Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45;E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, 22 January 2008;Emonet and Others v. Switzerland, no. 39051/03, 13 December 2007;Eski v. Austria, no. 21949/03, 25 January 2007;Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, ECHR 2002-I;Gas and Dubois v. France, no. 25951/07, 15 March 2012;Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 72, ECHR 2005-IX;Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, ECHR 2003-IX;Kozak v. Poland, no. 13102/02, 2 March 2010;L. and V. v. Austria, nos. 39392/98 and 39829/98, ECHR 2003-I;Modinos v. Cyprus, 22 April 1993, Series A no. 259;Norris v. Ireland, 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142;P.B. and J.S. v. Austria, no. 18984/02, 22 July 2010;Petrovic v. Austria, 27 March 1998, § 22, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II;S.H. and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 57813/00, § 94, ECHR 2011;Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, no. 33290/96, ECHR 1999-IX;Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, no. 30141/04, ECHR 2010;Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, ECHR 1999-VI;Sporer v. Austria, no. 35637/03, §§ 88-90, 3 February 2011;Wagner and J.M.W.L. v. Luxembourg, no. 76240/01, § 119, 28 June 2007;Zaunegger v. Germany, no. 22028/04, §§ 61-63, 3 December 2009
External sources: Article 7 §§ 1 and 2 of the 2008 European Convention on the Adoption of Children;Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 adopted on 31 March 2010 by the Committee of Ministers
Conclusion: No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award
Separate opinion: TRUE
X AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
Hearing: X. and Others v. Austria (no. 19010/07) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-10-03 00:00:00)
Application no.: 19010/07
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2009-01-29 00:00:00
Respondent state: AUT
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;14
Represented by: GRAUPNER HELMUT
Conclusion: Communicated
Separate opinion: FALSE
CASE OF MICHAUD v. FRANCE
Hearing: Michaud v. France (nos. 12323/11) (Chamber hearing, 2012-10-02 00:00:00)
Application no.: 12323/11
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2012-12-06 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:1206JUD001232311
Respondent state: FRA
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2;34;35
Judges: André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Helen Keller;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger
Represented by: FAVREAU B.
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
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)
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)
Separate opinion: FALSE
CASE OF VILNES AND OTHERS v. NORWAY
Hearing: Vilnes and Others v. Norway (nos. 52806/09 & 22703/10) (Chamber hearing, 2012-09-18 00:00:00)
Application no.: 52806/09
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2013-12-05 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:1205JUD005280609
Respondent state: NOR
Articles of the Convention: 2;2-1;3;8;8-1;35;41
Judges: Dag Bugge Nordén;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen
Represented by: LUDVIGSEN E. ; JOHNSRUD E. ; HELLUM-LILLEENGEN K. ; BENTSEN H.
Issue: Article 121 of the 1967 Diving Regulation ; Articles 3.4 (1) and 3(k) of the 1978 Regulation Appendix
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
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
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF VILNES AND OTHERS v. NORWAY
Hearing: Vilnes and Others v. Norway (nos. 52806/09 & 22703/10) (Chamber hearing, 2012-09-18 00:00:00)
Application no.: 22703/10
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2013-12-05 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:1205JUD005280609
Respondent state: NOR
Articles of the Convention: 2;2-1;3;8;8-1;35;41
Judges: Dag Bugge Nordén;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen
Represented by: LUDVIGSEN E. ; JOHNSRUD E. ; HELLUM-LILLEENGEN K. ; BENTSEN H.
Issue: Article 121 of the 1967 Diving Regulation ; Articles 3.4 (1) and 3(k) of the 1978 Regulation Appendix
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
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
Separate opinion: TRUE
LADELE AND McFARLANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
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)
Application no.: 51671/10
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2011-04-12 00:00:00
Respondent state: GBR
Articles of the Convention: 9;9-1;14;14+9
Represented by: ORMERODS SOLICITORS
Conclusion: Communicated
Separate opinion: FALSE
LADELE AND McFARLANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
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)
Application no.: 36516/10
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2011-04-12 00:00:00
Respondent state: GBR
Articles of the Convention: 9;9-1;14;14+9
Represented by: ORMERODS SOLICITORS
Conclusion: Communicated
Separate opinion: FALSE
UITGEVERSMAATSCHAPPIJ DE TELEGRAAF B.V. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
Hearing: Telegraaf Media Nederland Landelijke Media B.V. and Others v. the Netherlands (no. 39315/06) (Chamber hearing, 2012-06-19 00:00:00)
Application no.: 39315/06
Document type: DECISIONS
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0518DEC003931506
Respondent state: NLD
Articles of the Convention: 8;10;35
Judges: Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra
Represented by: DE KEMP, M.A., lawyer, Amsterdam ; LE POOLE, R.S., lawyer, Amsterdam
Conclusion: Partly inadmissible
CASE OF GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (I)
Hearing: Georgia v. Russia (I) (no. 13255/07) Just satisfaction (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-06-13 00:00:00)
Application no.: 13255/07
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2019-01-31 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0131JUD001325507
Respondent state: RUS
Articles of the Convention: 33;41
Judges: André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Ganna Yudkivska;Georgios A. Serghides;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Marko Bošnjak;Mārtiņš Mits;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
Represented by: DZAMASHVILI B. 
Strasbourg case-law cited: Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 60642/08, § 142, ECHR 2014;Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 142, 10 January 2012;Berdzenishvili and Others v. Russia, nos. 14594/07 and 6 others, 20 December 2016;Burmych and Others v. Ukraine (striking out) [GC], nos. 46852/13 et al., 12 October 2017;Chiragov and Others v. Armenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 13216/05, 12 December 2017;Cyprus v. Turkey (just satisfaction), [GC], no. 25781/94, ECHR 2014;Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) [GC], nos. 46113/99 and 7 others, § 69, ECHR 2010;Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 60041/08 and 60054/08, § 97, ECHR 2010 (extracts);Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 94, 22 May 2012;Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, § 202, ECHR 2013;Lisnyy v. Ukraine and Russia, nos. 5355/15, 44913/15 and 50852/15, 5 July 2016;Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 40167/06, 12 December 2017;Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, ECHR 2009
External sources: Articles 30 and 31 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001) of the Commission of International Law (United Nations)
Conclusion: Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE
GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (I)
Hearing: Georgia v. Russia (I) (no. 13255/07) Just satisfaction (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-06-13 00:00:00)
Application no.: 13255/07
Document type: DECISIONS
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0630DEC001325507
Respondent state: RUS
Articles of the Convention: 33;35;35-1
Judges: Anatoly Kovler;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Nona Tsotsoria;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger
Represented by: N/A
Strasbourg case-law cited: Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 159, Series A no. 25;Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 68, Reports of Judgments and Decisions, 1996-IV;Denmark v. Turkey (dec), no. 34382/97, 8 June 1999  Eur. Comm. H.R.  Nos. 9940-9944/82, Dec. 6.12.83, DR 35, §§19, 21-22;No. 25781/94, Dec. 28.6.96, D.R. 86
Conclusion: Preliminary objections joined to merits;Admissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period