taltwi/LaCour huggingface dataset:
HOTEL PROMOTION BUREAU S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ITALY
Hearing: G.I.E.M s.r.l v. Italy (no. 1828/06) , Hotel Promotion Bureau s.r.l. and Rita Sarda s.r.l. v. Italy (no. 34163/07) and Falgest s.r.l. and Gironda v. Italy (no. 19029/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-09-02 00:00:00)
Application no.: 34163/07
Document type: DECISIONS
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0605DEC003416307
Respondent state: ITA
Articles of the Convention: 6;7;13;35;P1-1
Judges: András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque
Represented by: LAVITOLA G.
Conclusion: Partly inadmissible
CASE OF G.I.E.M. S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ITALY
Hearing: G.I.E.M s.r.l v. Italy (no. 1828/06) , Hotel Promotion Bureau s.r.l. and Rita Sarda s.r.l. v. Italy (no. 34163/07) and Falgest s.r.l. and Gironda v. Italy (no. 19029/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-09-02 00:00:00)
Application no.: 19029/11
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2023-07-12 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0712JUD000182806
Respondent state: ITA
Articles of the Convention: 37;37-1;37-1-c;41
Represented by: MARIANI G. ; ROTUNNO F. ; LAVITOLA G. ; MANES V. ; LANA A.G. ; SACCUCCI A. 
Strasbourg case-law cited: Aviakompaniya A.T.I., ZAT v. Ukraine, no. 1006/07, 5 October 2017;Brumărescu v. Romania (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 28342/95, § 20, ECHR 2001-I;
Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, § 78, ECHR 2005 XII (extracts);Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 29, ECHR 2000-IV;
Dumitru v. Romania (just satisfaction), no. 4710/04, § 11, 3 June 2014;Euromak Metal Doo v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 68039/14, 14 June 2018;G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, 28 June 2018;Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00, § 90, 22 December 2009;Kurić and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828/06, § 79, ECHR 2014,;Molla Sali v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 20452/14, § 32, 18 June 2020;Nagmetov v. Russia [GC], no. 35589/08, §§ 65-66, 30 March 2017;Olewnik-Cieplińska and Olewnik v. Poland, no. 20147/15, § 150, 5 September 2019;RF SPOL. S R.O. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 9926/03, 20 October 2010;Schweizerische Radio-und Fernsehgesellschaft and publisuisse SA v. Switzerland, no. 41723/14, § 43, 22 December 2020;Sud Fondi S.r.l. and Others v. Italy (just satisfaction), no. 75909/01, 10 May 2012;Thaleia Karydi Axte v. Greece (just satisfaction), no. 44769/07, § 18, 10 February 2011;
Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, 8 September 2020;Uniya OOO and Belcourt Trading Company v. Russia, no. 4437/03 and 13290/03, 19 June 2014;Zhidov and Others v. Russia (just satisfaction), nos. 54490/10 and 3 others, § 19, 17 March 2020

Conclusion: Struck out of the list (Art. 37) Striking out applications-{general};(Art. 37-1) Striking out applications;(Art. 37-1-c) Continued examination not justified;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE
FALGEST S.R.L. AND GIRONDA v. ITALY
Hearing: G.I.E.M s.r.l v. Italy (no. 1828/06) , Hotel Promotion Bureau s.r.l. and Rita Sarda s.r.l. v. Italy (no. 34163/07) and Falgest s.r.l. and Gironda v. Italy (no. 19029/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-09-02 00:00:00)
Application no.: 19029/11
Document type: DECISIONS
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0430DEC001902911
Respondent state: ITA
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;6-2;7;13;35;P1-1;P7-2
Judges: András Sajó;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić;Peer Lorenzen
Represented by: LANA A.G. ; SACCUCCI A.
Conclusion: Partly inadmissible
JERONOVIČS v. LATVIA
Hearing: Jeronovičs v. Latvia (no. 44898/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-07-01 00:00:00)
Application no.: 44898/10
Document type: DECISIONS
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:1009DEC004489810
Respondent state: LVA
Articles of the Convention: 3;6;13;35
Judges: Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Ineta Ziemele;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque
Represented by: N/A
Conclusion: Partly inadmissible
NASR AND GHALI v. ITALY
Hearing: Nasr and Ghali v. Italy (no. 44883/09) (Chamber hearing, 2015-06-23 00:00:00)
Application no.: 44883/09
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2011-11-22 00:00:00
Respondent state: ITA
Articles of the Convention: 3;6;6-1;8;8-1;8-2;13
Represented by: BAUCCIO L. ; SCAMBIA C.
Conclusion: Communicated
Separate opinion: FALSE
ARMANI DA SILVA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Hearing: Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom (no. 5878/08) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-06-10 00:00:00)
Application no.: 5878/08
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2010-09-28 00:00:00
Respondent state: GBR
Articles of the Convention: 2;13
Represented by: BIRNBERG PEIRCE & PARTNERS
Conclusion: Communicated
Separate opinion: FALSE
CASE OF GOUARRÉ PATTE v. ANDORRA
Hearing: Gouarre Patte v. Andorra (no. 33427/10) (Chamber hearing, 2015-05-19 00:00:00)
Application no.: 33427/10
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2016-01-12 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0112JUD003342710
Respondent state: AND
Articles of the Convention: 7;7-1;13;13+7-1;35;41
Represented by: BELLERA GRACIA M.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 27021/08, ECHR 2011;Gardel v. France, no 16428/05, §§ 40 and ss. ECHR 2009;Jėčius v. Lithuania, no 34578/97, ECHR 2000 IX;Scoppola v. Italy, no 50550/06, 10 June 2008;Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece, 29 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 III;Vanyan v. Russia, n 53203/99, § 56, 15 December 2005;X v. Federal Republic of Germany, no 7900/77, decision of the Commission of 6 March 1978, Decisions and Reports (DR) 13, pp. 70-72
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Retroactivity);Violation of Article 13+7-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 7 - No punishment without law;Article 7-1 - Retroactivity);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE
GOUARRE PATTE v. ANDORRA
Hearing: Gouarre Patte v. Andorra (no. 33427/10) (Chamber hearing, 2015-05-19 00:00:00)
Application no.: 33427/10
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2011-05-23 00:00:00
Respondent state: AND
Articles of the Convention: 7;13
Represented by: BELLERA GRACIA M.
Conclusion: Communicated
Separate opinion: FALSE
CASE OF A.B. v. SWITZERLAND
Hearing: Bédat v. Switzerland (no. 56925/08) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-05-13 00:00:00)
Application no.: 56925/08
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-07-01 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0701JUD005692508
Respondent state: CHE
Articles of the Convention: 10;10-1;10-2
Judges: András Sajó;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano
Represented by: PONCET C.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Ageyevy v. Russia, no 7075/10, §§ 224-225, 18 April 2013;Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 48876/08, § 100, ECHR 2013;Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no 39954/08, § 108, 7 February 2012;Barthold v. Germany, 25 March 1985, § 58, Series A no 90;Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no 21980/93, § 62, ECHR 1999 III;Campos Dâmaso v. Portugal, no 17107/05, § 35, 24 April 2008;Dammann v. Switzerland, no 77551/01, § 57, 25 April 2006;De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, 24 February 1997, § 37, Reports 1997-I;Dupuis and Others v. France, no 1914/02, 7 June 2007;Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no 33400/96, § 98, 15 July 2003;Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999 I;Hachette Filipacchi Associés (ICI PARIS) v. France, no 12268/03, § 40, 23 July 2009;Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49 in fine, Series A no 24;Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, Series A no 298;Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007 IV;Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 44, Series A no 103;Lopes Gomes da Silva v. Portugal, no 37698/97, § 36, ECHR 2000 X;Monnat v. Switzerland, no 73604/01, § 70, ECHR 2006 X;Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland [GC], no 16354/06, § 48, ECHR 2012 (extracts);Ormanni v. Italy, no 30278/04, § 59, 17 July 2007;Perna v. Italy [GC], no 48898/99, § 39, ECHR 2003 V;Pinto Coelho v. Portugal, no 28439/08, § 33, 28 June 2011;Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 38, Series A no 313;Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no 68416/01, § 87, ECHR 2005 II;Stoll v. Switzerland [GC], no 69698/01, ECHR 2007 V;Sürek v. Turkey (no 1) [GC], no 26682/95, ECHR 1999-IV;Thoma v. Luxembourg, no 38432/97, §§ 43 45, ECHR 2001 III;Tourancheau and July v. France, no 53886/00, 24 November 2005;Wingrove v. the United Kingdom, 25 November 1996, § 58, Reports 1996 V;Worm v. Austria, 29 August 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V
Conclusion: Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF COUDERC AND HACHETTE FILIPACCHI ASSOCIÉS v. FRANCE
Hearing: Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France (no. 40454/07) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-04-15 00:00:00)
Application no.: 40454/07
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-06-12 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0612JUD004045407
Respondent state: FRA
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;10;10-1;10-2
Judges: André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens
Represented by: DE PERCIN M.-C.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Armonienė v. Lithuania, no 36919/02, § 36, 25 November 2008;Artun and Güvener v. Turkey, no 75510/01, 26 June 2007;Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no 39954/08, 7 February 2012;Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no 21980/93, §§ 59 and 62, ECHR 1999 III;Chauvy and Others v. France, no 64915/01, § 70, ECHR 2004 VI;Colombani and Others v. France, no 51279/99, § 68, ECHR 2002-V;Eon v. France, no 26118/10, § 59, 14 March 2013;Flinkkilä and Others v. Finland, no 25576/04, 6 April 2010;Gurgenidze v. Georgia, no 71678/01, § 55, 17 October 2006;Hachette Filipacchi Associés (« Ici Paris ») v. France, no 12268/03, 23 July 2009;Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France, no 71111/01, § 43, 14 June 2007;Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland, no 53678/00, § 38, ECHR 2004 X;Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 62, ECHR 2007 IV;Lopes Gomes da Silva v. Portugal, no 37698/97, § 30, ECHR 2000-X;MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no 39401/04, § 142, 18 January 2011;Minelli v. Switzerland (dec.), no 14991/02, 14 June 2005;Mosley v. the United Kingdom, no 48009/08, § 111, 10 May 2011;Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland [GC], no 16354/06, § 60, ECHR 2012 (extracts);Ojala and Etukeno Oy v. Finland, no 69939/10, 14 January 2014;Otegi Mondragon v. Spain, no 2034/07, ECHR 2011;Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no 49017/99, ECHR 2004-XI;Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no 34147/06 § 40, 21 September 2010;Reklos and Davourlis v. Greece, no 1234/05, § 35, 15 January 2009;Ruusunen v. Finland, no 73579/10, 14 January 2014;S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 2008;Saaristo and Others v. Finland, no 184/06, § 61, 12 October 2010;Schüssel v. Austria (dec.), no 42409/98, 21 February 2002;Söderman v. Sweden [GC], nos. 5786/08, § 78, ECHR 2013;Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria (no 2), no 21277/05 4 June 2009;Sürek v. Turkey (no 1) [GC], no 26682/95, § 64, ECHR 1999-IV;Tammer v. Estonia, no 41205/98, § 60, ECHR 2001 I;Timciuc v. Romania (dec.), no 28999/03, § 144, 12 October 2010;Vides Aizsardzības Klubs v. Latvia, no 57829/00, § 40, 27 May 2004;Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, § 57, ECHR 2004-VI;Von Hannover v. Germany (no 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, ECHR 2012;Von Hannover v. Germany (no 3), no 8772/10, 19 September 2013;X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 23, Series A no 91
Conclusion: Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF AVOTIŅŠ v. LATVIA
Hearing: Avotiņš v. Latvia (no. 17502/07) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-04-08 00:00:00)
Application no.: 17502/07
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2016-05-23 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0523JUD001750207
Respondent state: LVA
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;András Sajó;André Potocki;Dean Spielmann;Egidijus Kūris;Elisabeth Steiner;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Josep Casadevall;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Mark Villiger;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva;Ksenija Turković
Represented by: EGLĪTIS J. ; LIEPA L.
Issue: Section 230(1) of the Latvian Civil Procedure Law
Strasbourg case-law cited: Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16  September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 IV;Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, ECHR 2005 VI;Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 197, ECHR 2012;Dhahbi v. Italy, no. 17120/09, §§ 31-34, 8 April 2014;Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, 26 June 1992, § 110, Series A no. 240;García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I;Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, § 56, ECHR 2004-III;Hussin v. Belgium (dec.), no. 70807/01, 6 May 2004;Jeunesse v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 12738/10, § 110, 3 October 2014;M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 338, ECHR 2011;McDonald v. France (dec.), no. 18648/04, 29 April 2008;Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, ECHR 2012;Miholapa v. Latvia, no. 61655/00, § 23, 31 May 2007;Naydenov v. Bulgaria, no. 17353/03, § 50, 26 November 2009;Övüş v. Turkey, no. 42981/04, § 47, 13 October 2009;Pellegrini v. Italy, no. 30882/96, §§ 40-41, ECHR 2001 VIII;Povse v. Austria (dec.), no. 3890/11, 18 June 2013;Robba v. Germany, no. 20999/92, Commission decision of 28 February 1996;S.J. v. Luxembourg, no. 34471/04, § 52, 4 March 2008;Saccoccia v. Austria, no. 69917/01, §§ 60-62, 18 December 2008;Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, § 115, ECHR 2015;Sholokhov v. Armenia and the Republic of Moldova, no. 40358/05, § 66, 31 July 2012;Société Guérin Automobiles v. the 15 States of the European Union (dec.), no. 51717/99, 4 July 2000;Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v. Belgium, nos. 3989/07 and 38353/07, § 62, 20 September 2011;Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, §§ 63 and 72, ECHR 1999 I;X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 98 and 107, ECHR 2013
External sources: Preamble, Articles 34(1) and 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I Regulation);Article 6 (amended) of the Treaty on European Union;Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;Treaty of Lisbon;Dublin II Regulation;Articles 67(1),  81(1) and 82(1) of the TFEU
Conclusion: No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial;Equality of arms)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF AVOTIŅŠ v. LATVIA
Hearing: Avotiņš v. Latvia (no. 17502/07) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-04-08 00:00:00)
Application no.: 17502/07
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-02-25 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0225JUD001750207
Respondent state: LVA
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;35;35-1;35-3-b
Judges: George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
Represented by: EGLITIS J.
Issue: Sections 637 and 644 of the Latvian Civil Procedure Law
Strasbourg case-law cited: Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland [GC], no 45036/98, ECHR 2005 VI;Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no 62543/00, § 56, ECHR 2004 III;Grišankova and Grišankovs v. Latvia (dec.), no 36117/02, ECHR 2003 II;S.J. v. Luxembourg, no 34471/04, § 52, 4 March 2008;Joos v. Switzerland, no 43245/07, § 19, 15 November 2012;Liepājnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no 37586/06, § 73, 2 November 2010;McDonald v. France (dec.), no 18648/04, 29 April 2008;Michaud v. France, no 12323/11, § 100, ECHR 2012;Miholapa v. Latvia, no 61655/00, § 23, 31 May 2007;Orams v. Cyprus (dec.), no 27841/07, 10 June 2010;Övüş v. Turkey, no 42981/04, § 47, 13 October 2009;Pellegrini v. Italy, no 30882/96, §§ 40-41, 2001 VIII;Sancho Cruz and 14 other « Agrarian Reform » cases v. Portugal, nos. 8851/07, 8854/07, 8856/07, 8865/07, 10142/07, 10144/07, 24622/07, 32733/07, 32744/07, 41645/07, 19150/08, 22885/08, 22887/08, 26612/08 and 202/09, §§ 33-35, 18 January 2011;Savičs v. Latvia, no 17892/03, §§ 113-114, 27 November 2012;Shefer v. Russia (dec.), no 45175/04, §§ 24-25, 13 March 2012;Sholokhov v. Armenia and Moldova, no 40358/05, § 66, 31 July 2012
External sources: Articles 33-36, 38 et 54 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and and commercial matters (“Brussels I Regulation”)
Conclusion: Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3-b - No significant disadvantage);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF SCHATSCHASCHWILI v. GERMANY
Hearing: Schatschaschwili v. Germany (no. 9154/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-03-04 00:00:00)
Application no.: 9154/10
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-04-17 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0417JUD000915410
Respondent state: DEU
Articles of the Convention: 6;6+6-3-d;6-1;6-3;6-3-d;35
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger
Represented by: MEYER-MEWS H.
Issue: Article 168 (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Strasbourg case-law cited: Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011;Artner v. Austria, 28 August 1992, §§ 21-22, Series A no. 242 A;Asch v. Austria, 26 April 1991, § 28, Series A no. 203;D. v. Finland, no. 30542/04, § 41, 7 July 2009;De Lorenzo v. Italy (dec.), no. 69264/01, 12 February 2004;Doorson v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, § 70, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 II;Ellis and Simms v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 46099/06, § 81, 10 April 2012;Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 175, ECHR 2010;Gossa v. Poland, no. 47986/99, 9 January 2007;Haas v. Germany (dec.), no. 73047/01, 17 November 2005;Hümmer v. Germany, no. 26171/07, §§ 41 and 43, 19 July 2012;Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 39, ECHR 2001 II;Mayali v. France, no. 69116/01, § 32, 14 June 2005;Pesukic v. Switzerland, no. 25088/07, §§ 49-50, 6 December 2012;Sadak and Others v. Turkey, nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, § 67, ECHR 2001 VIII;Scheper v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39209/02, 5 April 2005;Solakov v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, no. 47023/99, § 57, ECHR 2001 X;Štefančič v. Slovenia, no. 18027/05, § 42, 25 October 2012;Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, § 84, ECHR 2010
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF MURRAY v. THE NETHERLANDS
Hearing: Murray v. the Netherlands (no. 10511/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-01-14 00:00:00)
Application no.: 10511/10
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2016-04-26 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0426JUD001051110
Respondent state: NLD
Articles of the Convention: 3;34;41
Judges: Alvina Gyulumyan;András Sajó;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Corneliu Bîrsan;Dean Spielmann;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Ján Šikuta;Jean-Paul Costa;Johannes Silvis;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Kristina Pardalos;Nebojša Vučinić;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque
Represented by: REIJNTJES-WENDENBURG C.
Strasbourg case-law cited: A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 128, ECHR 2009;Aerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, § 66, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V;Bodein v. France, no. 40014/10, § 61, 13 November 2014;Carrella v. Italy, no. 33955/07, §§ 48-51, 9 September 2014;Creangă v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, § 130, 23 February 2012;Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 28, ECHR 2007 V;Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 123, ECHR 2010;Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 82, Series A no. 244;James, Wells and Lee v. the United Kingdom, nos. 25119/09, 57715/09 and 57877/09, 18 September 2012;K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, ECHR 2001 VII;Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, ECHR 2008;Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 121 and 144 145, ECHR 2015;Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000 XI;Larionovs and Tess v. Latvia (dec.), nos. 45520/04 and 19363/05, § 172, 25 November 2014;László Magyar v. Hungary, no. 73593/10, 20 May 2014;M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 418, ECHR 2011;Maiorano and Others v. Italy, no. 28634/06, §§ 115 122, 15 December 2009;Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000 XII;Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, § 72, ECHR 2002 VIII;Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 128, ECHR 2012;Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 42023/98, § 112, 10 February 2004;Öcalan v. Turkey (no. 2), nos. 24069/03, 197/04, 6201/06 and 10464/07, § 203, 18 March 2014;Raffray Taddei v. France, no. 36435/07, 21 December 2010;Sławomir Musiał v. Poland, no. 28300/06, § 87, 20 January 2009;Trabelsi v. Belgium, no. 140/10, § 137, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom, [GC], nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts)
External sources: Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles in 2007
Conclusion: Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 34 - Locus standi;Victim);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF MURRAY v. THE NETHERLANDS
Hearing: Murray v. the Netherlands (no. 10511/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-01-14 00:00:00)
Application no.: 10511/10
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2013-12-10 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:1210JUD001051110
Respondent state: NLD
Articles of the Convention: 3
Judges: Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria
Represented by: WENDENBURG C.
Conclusion: No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)
Separate opinion: FALSE